On Monday, 14 November 2016 at 13:44:29 UTC, Patrick Schluter wrote:

>
> That's a true issue imho also. I had the same problem. Both my machine at work and at home have their windows system partition on a smallish SSD. Installing Visual Studio failed because of lack of space. Even installing it on another drive fails because even in that case the Microsofties want to install gigabytes of stuff on the system drive. Extremely annoying when you only want to install an otherwise extremely lean development tool (dmd) to test 100 liners.

Same here. Last week I tried to install dmd on Windows only to learn that there was not enough space for Visual Studio.

On Monday, 14 November 2016 at 09:33:48 UTC, AB wrote:
> On Monday, 14 November 2016 at 09:06:18 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>> DMD can generate 64-bit object files just fine, you only need to link them, and DMD can invoke ms linker for you, that's all.
>
> It is unreasonable to pull in the many GBs of Visual Studio as a dependency only to use its 64-bit linker.

FWIW, Digger can download and unpack only those parts of Visual Studio that D needs:

https://github.com/CyberShadow/ae/blob/3365c066c78a82584b8fc5b24edc4da0a4f738a8/sys/d/manager.d#L2089-L2104

Digger is https://github.com/CyberShadow/Digger.

On 11/14/2016 08:44 AM, Patrick Schluter wrote:
>
> have their windows system partition on a smallish SSD.

Well, in all honestly, that IS going to cause problems regardless. The larger SSDs are fine (enough) for a phone, but for a PC that's used for anything more than the average joe's web/email/word combo, SSDs are still far too small.

I still have an "old fashioned" HDD-only in my PC (a laptop): dirt-cheap: <$100 for 1TB (try to find an SSD that remotely compares), and the ONLY time I ever have speed issues in either Win or Lin is when I'm running far too much crap and start hitting virtual memory swapping (or when some badly coded program soaks up all the CPU recourses, but SSDs cant help with that anyway).

On 11/14/2016 04:33 AM, AB wrote:
> On Monday, 14 November 2016 at 09:06:18 UTC, Kagamin wrote:
>> DMD can generate 64-bit object files just fine, you only need to link
>> them, and DMD can invoke ms linker for you, that's all.
>
> It is unreasonable to pull in the many GBs of Visual Studio as a
> dependency only to use its 64-bit linker.
>

The Linux and Mac versions rely on Linux/Mac's native C linkers, regardless of 32/64 bit. If Win's native linker is too large, or can't be obtained as part of a small enough package, that's really a Microsoft problem. You can't blame Samsung if there's nothing good to watch on TV.

On Monday, 14 November 2016 at 16:59:56 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On 11/14/2016 08:44 AM, Patrick Schluter wrote:
>>
>> have their windows system partition on a smallish SSD.
>
> Well, in all honestly, that IS going to cause problems regardless. The larger SSDs are fine (enough) for a phone, but for a PC that's used for anything more than the average joe's web/email/word combo, SSDs are still far too small.
>
> I still have an "old fashioned" HDD-only in my PC (a laptop): dirt-cheap: <$100 for 1TB (try to find an SSD that remotely compares), and the ONLY time I ever have speed issues in either Win or Lin is when I'm running far too much crap and start hitting virtual memory swapping (or when some badly coded program soaks up all the CPU recourses, but SSDs cant help with that anyway).

In 2005 a 250Gb magnetic HDD costed the same as nowadays 250Gb SSD.

On Monday, 14 November 2016 at 18:04:05 UTC, fdjfgj wrote:
> On Monday, 14 November 2016 at 16:59:56 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> On 11/14/2016 08:44 AM, Patrick Schluter wrote:
>>>
>>> have their windows system partition on a smallish SSD.
>>
>> Well, in all honestly, that IS going to cause problems regardless. The larger SSDs are fine (enough) for a phone, but for a PC that's used for anything more than the average joe's web/email/word combo, SSDs are still far too small.
>>
>> I still have an "old fashioned" HDD-only in my PC (a laptop): dirt-cheap: <$100 for 1TB (try to find an SSD that remotely compares), and the ONLY time I ever have speed issues in either Win or Lin is when I'm running far too much crap and start hitting virtual memory swapping (or when some badly coded program soaks up all the CPU recourses, but SSDs cant help with that anyway).
>
> In 2005 a 250Gb magnetic HDD costed the same as nowadays 250Gb SSD.

In 2005 I had no wife nor kids, so I could put whatever I fancied in my PC, now I have other priorities. At work, I have only a very small influence on what goes into my workstation. I'm even one of the super duper priviledged, I have an i3 with 8GiB (took me one year to be upgraded to that), a 128GB  SSD, a 250GB platter and local admin rights (that I have to renew every year with a 2 page form with justifications why I need such fancy stuff).

On 11/14/2016 01:04 PM, fdjfgj wrote:
> On Monday, 14 November 2016 at 16:59:56 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> On 11/14/2016 08:44 AM, Patrick Schluter wrote:
>>>
>>> have their windows system partition on a smallish SSD.
>>
>> Well, in all honestly, that IS going to cause problems regardless. The
>> larger SSDs are fine (enough) for a phone, but for a PC that's used
>> for anything more than the average joe's web/email/word combo, SSDs
>> are still far too small.
>>
>> I still have an "old fashioned" HDD-only in my PC (a laptop):
>> dirt-cheap: <$100 for 1TB (try to find an SSD that remotely compares),
>> and the ONLY time I ever have speed issues in either Win or Lin is
>> when I'm running far too much crap and start hitting virtual memory
>> swapping (or when some badly coded program soaks up all the CPU
>> recourses, but SSDs cant help with that anyway).
>
> In 2005 a 250Gb magnetic HDD costed the same as nowadays 250Gb SSD.

Eh? 2005 has nothing to do with anything.

In 2016, magnetic HDDs are not purchased at 2005 prices.

In 2016, a 250GB magnetic HDD costs vastly less than a 250GB SSD.

In 2016, you can even get a 1TB HDD for less than a 250GB SSD. Even in 2.5".

In 2016, 250GB is quite small as far as general-purpose PC storage goes.

In 2016, I picked up a 5TB USB3 HDD drive for HALF the price of a 1TB SSD.

But most importantly:

In what alternate 2016 reality is a 250GB drive insufficient to be able to spare 3Gb to install a core dev tool?

On Monday, 14 November 2016 at 20:01:37 UTC, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> On 11/14/2016 01:04 PM, fdjfgj wrote:
>> In 2005 a 250Gb magnetic HDD costed the same as nowadays 250Gb SSD.
>
> Eh? 2005 has nothing to do with anything.
>
> In 2016, magnetic HDDs are not purchased at 2005 prices.
>
> In 2016, a 250GB magnetic HDD costs vastly less than a 250GB SSD.
>
> In 2016, you can even get a 1TB HDD for less than a 250GB SSD. Even in 2.5".

I tried to tell that the SSD technology becomes cheaper and cheaper, as the magnetic disks during the previous decade.

>
> In 2016, 250GB is quite small as far as general-purpose PC storage goes.

Because general purpose PC users more or less suffer of digital hoarding (videos & games & music accumulation).

Dne 14.11.2016 v 21:01 Nick Sabalausky via Digitalmars-d napsal(a):

> But most importantly:
>
> In what alternate 2016 reality is a 250GB drive insufficient to be able to spare 3Gb to install a core dev tool?
>
First it is more than a 3GB, on my windows it has been around 10GB or more for VS and sdk (I belive I can remove some checkboxes in instalation but who knows which :D). And second I have 128GB ssd with dual boot or even with just linux and virtual machine for windows 10 it has been problem for me :D.

Yep I need to by a new SSD :)

On Monday, 14 November 2016 at 13:44:29 UTC, Patrick Schluter wrote:
> Extremely annoying when you only want to install an otherwise extremely lean development tool (dmd) to test 100 liners.

But you most probably don't need all that stuff for testing your 100-liners. By default DMD on Windows builds 32-bit binaries where its own linker is used, you don't really need MS linker to make Windows binaries with DMD. 32 bits are quite fine for most cases.