It’s just that we have to make space for our 5,358 partners and the telemetry data they need.
That still wouldn’t account for it. The code to collect this is tiny and the data isn’t stored locally. The whole point is for them to suck it up into their massive dataset.
Electron everywhere.
And analytics. And offloading as much computation to the client, because servers are expensive and inefficiency is not an issue if your users are the ones paying for it.
I saw an ad request with an inline 1.4 MB game. Like, you could fit Mario in there.
The Samsung shop hands out 1.4mb JSON responses for order tracking, with what I estimate 99% redundant information that is repeated many times in different parts of the structure.
Web “Apps” are also quite bad. Lots of and lots of stuff we’re downloading and it feels clunky.
Sometimes that’s bad coding, poor optimization, third party libraries, or sometimes just including trackers/ads on the page.
Some devs will include a whole library for one thing instead of trying to learn another way to do that thing.
from * import *A whole library which was meant to to 10 things, but you only use one. And that for x libraries
Paypal has 500 mb and just shows a number and you can press a button to send a number to their server.
It’s insane
You made me check it, and on my android device it’s 337 (just the app). Jesus Christ.
Mine has 660MB with 7MB user data, 15MB cache.
LMAO, he also made me check it.
347 MB for me, no wonder why I am always struggling with storage for my 128 GB phone (with not expandable storage of course), and I don’t even have that many games, even less ROMs 😅
Has to send a number to Apple’s server too! actually not even sure if that’s client side.
Cheaper & faster development by leveraging large libraries/frameworks, but inability to automatically drop most unused parts of those libraries/frameworks. You could in theory shrink Electron way down by yoinking out tons of browser features you’re not using, but there’s not much incentive to do it and it’d potentially require a lot of engineering work.
Yeah, though the joke is funny, this is the real answer.
Storage is cheap compared to creating custom libraries.
Also the storage is the cost for the user, and google in the case of play store. So the developers have no incentive to reduce the size.
64kb should be enough for anyone
is that the size of doom or something lol
Yep. Apps are 20x bigger with no new features…that you are using.
Let’s not forget that the graphics for applications has scaled with display resolution, and people generally demand a smooth modern look for their apps.
In the case of normal apps like PayPal graphics shouldn’t be a huge factor since it should be vectorized and there is pretty much no graphics in apps like PayPal.
The issue comes from frameworks.
Tap for spoiler
Get electroned
I’d rather have the Rickroll, please 😐
The hp printer app says it needs your location to connect to WiFi. It says it needs your location all the time when not using the app, again to connect to WiFi
I think that’s to do with how permissions work.
Having wi-fi access can technically tell the app where you’re located so you need to give it location access
Which is stupid because it then also gets GPS access.
Can confirm.
Now, I just need to know why my calculator needs access to my contacts.
That’s because it gets lonely and needs someone to text.
It’s because one is the loneliest number.
You just reminded me of one particular calculator app which put “+” button behind a paywall
#include “the_entire_fucking_internet.h”
You know we’ve reached peak bloat and stupidity when JavaScript web apps have a compilation step, and I don’t mean JIT.
I’d rather take a compile step than having no type safety in JS, even as a user.
Except… the compilation step doesn’t add type safety to JS.
As an aside, type safety hasn’t been something I truly miss in JS, despite how often it’s mentioned.
I think they are talking about typescript which is compiled into javascript
Ok, that could be true. I assumed they meant the “building” phase that some frameworks go through.
If the goal is to not have apps be too large, you probably don’t want to send the full variable and function names and all of the comments over the wire every time someone loads a webpage. That would be a very inefficient use of bandwidth, wouldn’t it?
Don’t we have compression built into http already?
Bloatware, spyware, scope creep from middle managers feeling uncomfortable letting a dev have a slow day.
uh, please do ask, why does opening a fucking glorified text and image processing app require 1 gigabyte of ram.
Who wrote this software? The guy from the bible who was the model for greed and gluttony? Jesus christ.
Because companies give zero fucks. They will tell you they need tons of IT people, when in reality they want tons of underpaid programmers. They want stuff as fast and cheap as possible. What doesn’t cause immediate trouble is usually good enough. What can be patched up somehow is kept running, even when it only leads you further up the cliff you will fall off eventually.
Management is sometimes completely clueless. They rather hire twice as many people to keep some poorly developed app running, than to invest in a new, better developed app, that requires less maintenance and provides a better user experience. Zero risk tolerance and zero foresight.
It still generates money, you keep it running. Any means are fine.
Ironically the management that does have a clue often is hamstrung somewhere up the chain.
Skill issue
Nailed it. Things have changed to allow cheaper (interpretable in several ways) developers to create “good enough” software as quickly as possible. If that involves inefficient frameworks, technology, and practices that unlock this, then so be it; if the “best” code is the code that makes money, and money is what corporations prioritize above all else, and there is a way to do that quicker and cheaper, the outcome is obvious and now ubiquitous. Furthermore, if nobody at the top cares, why should anyone on the ground care? The problem compounds.
Priorities are fucked.
I wouldn’t say skill issue, more of time issue. You only get a week to implement something. Quicker to use existing libraries than try to optimise yourself.
It’s both, and they are in a sense the same.
Cheaper less skilled or less experienced programmers take longer to get similar results. One week with a a skilled programmer is a lot more value than one week with an unskilled programmer.
Even more if you want to invest some of that experienced programmer time to get the new guy up to speed.
React
Why? Its libraries are a few kilobytes each.
https://bundlephobia.com/package/react@19.0.0 - 7.3 Kb
https://bundlephobia.com/package/react-dom@19.0.0 - 3.6 KbIs that the JS bundle only? I think you’re forgetting the need to ship a rendering engine, a JavaScript engine, and the rest of the JS you inevitably bring in if you’re using something like React.
Oh, I focus mainly on web. ‘Forgetting’ to ship engines is my bread & butter. lol I see you meant React (+Electron).
It’s like Moore’s law. The number of bytes for a basic app doubles every 2.5 years.
When I was young, we’d get a few different games games on a single 1.4 Mb floppy disk. The games were simpler, sure, but exactly the same games now would be far bigger in bytes.
At least games make sense, as the graphics get better. Though in some cases, the compression is also better. Like PS5 games are smaller on average than their PS4 versions, even though they have higher resolution textures in most cases, just because the PS5 has better compression/decompression tech.
Better than that, the lack of reliance on spinning disks means that asset duplication and data read order is less of a requirement to reduce load times. It can still be argued that there’s just too many polygons, since simply scaling things back would be plenty effective in reducing storage usage and load times.
The other problem for bigger GB games is texture resolution. Games don’t always need 8K or 4K textures. 2K is good enough.
My shitty eyes can’t detect any difference past 720p
I only notice that the bigger the resolution, the smaller the text when the game in question has poor scaling options for the 2D elements…
deleted by creator
Like PS5 games are smaller on average than their PS4 versions
My favorite example of this is Subnautica. The system didn’t call on the assets as quickly, or a different way I can’t remember all of the details but essentially they had to put like five copies of every asset on the ps4 version to get it to run properly. The ps5 accesses the assets fast enough it only needs one copy. At least that’s how it was explained to me.
Compression is mostly done in software.
uh, bad news for you.
All programming is done in software my guy.
Great! Your point?
this entire thread is about software being dogshit? (this specific comment thread is about compression being moderately improved on one console, but that’s not really significant)
Games is the one example that actually makes sense though. The game code size hasn’t really increased tremendously, but the uncompressed assets have only gotten more detailed and more numerous.
Memory is cheap and data sells enough to many parties. Most apps are just store front for Ads and data collection.
No wonder why open source apps are quite light.
deleted by creator
Bro, just use AI, bro, you don’t need developers, bro, also skip the testing, bro, who is going to hack your SaaS, bro
