> On 25 Nov 2014, at 18:51, Esteban A. Maringolo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > El Tue Nov 25 2014 at 1:22:50 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> escribió: > I think is you who is confusing apple and oranges. > at first time, a check of my iphone shows that more than half of the apps I > use are bigger than 30m (and 30% of them are regularly 50m and more… I even > have apps 500+)… and those applications are the ones that I use the most. > no games there. They are: fb, mail, whatsapp, keynote, etc. (ah, no… there is > a sudoku there.. 60m :P) > > > Again... FB, MAIL, WhatsApp, KeyNote. Those are super mainstream > applications. Tell me about a "regular" native app. I'm not fluent with iOS > to compare.
puff… skype, g drive (75m in my case), g+, youtube, one app from here which is called voyages-scnf, a pedometer, g maps, foursquare, a chess, one called transpole (also from transport, here) and even vorterix radio… all 20m+ but also you are assuming people accept the size of the main stream apps because they are main stream, when the reality is what Kilon says: no body cares, no body ever look at it. in fact, the only thing I look at is how much my battery drains if I’m using the app… that is far more important than app size. > > Duolingo, TED, Flipboard, and even Google's Play Store all take ~15 MB each. > > I build Android apps, packed with lots of third party libraries and they are > around ~2-3MB including some static assets. They're small and gzipped, for > sure, but I don't find a better way to trim the image to be closer to that > other than zipping it. that doesn’t mean your app will take 2-3m when used… it will be more. Also pharo packed is a lot less than regular size :) > > Now, for distributing your application your image will be not equal to your > development image. You will strip things and reduce some others (there is a > shrink process that Pavel does in the Pharo-minimal image and time ago I made > some experiments and I ended with an usable 8m image running in iPhone… I > even got a 4m image but no morphic was present so it was using > ObjectiveCBridge to show some screens with functionality…) > > Modularity is the key, and we'll not have it, so I'm fine with what you guys > do. > I'd love to download a no morphic image and load my configurations on top of > it, but it really won't make much difference in my current usage scenarios. we will be there. soon. > > Also, for production you will be removing sources and changes, so you do not > have to take those into account (even taking it, they are never loaded into > image, they are accessed when needed). > > Unless you want to apply (compile/file-in) changes on the running image, on > that case you'll need a changes file. (please tell me I've been wrong all > this time). you will not do that in a mobile app, I hope… but also, you do not need them… in the worst case it will be created when you do the file in. (btw… Pharo3 does not have decompiler, something that you need. Pharo4 has it) > > So… I think a mobile final app of 20m - 50m (and take into account that a 50m > app will be really big, DrGeo2 was 35m) is perfectly reasonable. Is not huge > and most applications nowadays (even the stupid ones) occupies way more. > > On the server, the size doesn't matter to much to me, on mobile I still > consider those weights to be excessive. Particularly if it is about code and > not static assets. … and I think you are wrong :) > > Add music, images and video and that size will be nothing. > > > Now, that 5% idle is much-much more worrying that app size. And we already > have an even VM who does not consumes that (JB did it) It will be integrated > soon (JB needs to finish I don’t know exactly what). > > This is certainly more important and affects me more than transfering 50 > extra megs to the servers on each release. So please ignore all I said before > and focus on this. :) I look forward to see this available! yeah, we are working for you :) Esteban > > Regards!
