Replacing Answer/Ask

[Richard Gaskin]

Derek Bump wrote:
> The reason I care so much about reducing file size is because file size 
> can have a lot to do when determining if a program will sink or swim.
> 
> Example:  My program, when compressed, comes out to about 1.38 MBs.  In 
> today's age that file size is OK, but a lot of people still think in 
> terms of life on the internet before broadband.  Those terms were, if 
> it's smaller, they'll download it first.
> 
> I know that example quite well in that I always download the smallest 
> program first.  Nothing makes me squirm more than seeing a program, such 
> as an FTP program, with a download size of 8.1 MBs.  With a size that 
> big, I'll download the 433 KB ftp program first.

I agree that smaller files can make for a more attractive download, and 
I do feel it's important to keep an eye on the size of the engine for 
that reason.

But on balance I believe a 2MB engine is generally acceptable for all 
but the most trivial of apps whose functionality wouldn't warrant much 
in the way of payment anyway.

Many of my commercial apps are less than 1MB in stack file size; with 
the engine they approach 3MB.  Compared to the simplest of utilities 
that may be big -- or is it?

Check out this random sampling of popular OS X apps (these are .app 
sizes only, not counting any additonal examples, etc.):

Tex-Edit Plus:     5.6MB
Freeway LE:        8.8MB
Interarchy:        9.8MB
Apple iChat:      10.5MB
LimeWire:         13.2MB
Apple DVD Player: 13.2MB
Fax STF:          14.1MB
FireFox:          25.2MB
Apple iTunes:     29.8MB
Thunderbird:      33.9MB
AOL client:       46.5MB
Acrobat Reader:   77.5MB

And my personal favorite bloat example:
Apple's OS X Calculator:  3.1MB (the OS 9 version was <8k)
So much for the "efficiency" of the "shared" Cocoa framework, eh? :)

This is not to suggest that anything less than 77.5MB is cool.  But it 
does show that where the application's functionality rewards the 
downloader, the download will happen.

Compared to these "modern" Cocoa-based apps, the Rev engine look very, 
very slender.

Let's just hope it doesn't get much larger.  Taking steps today to build 
toward a future of modular components will allow nearly infinite 
functionality to be addable at no cost to engine size (it may actually 
make for a smaller engine for some apps).

--
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Media Corporation
  __________________________________________________
  Rev tools and more: http://www.fourthworld.com/rev