• TCB13@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Thank you for the link, so --self-contained will results in “a folder that has our exe and everything that is required to run it (…) a little over 200 files” while /p:PublishSingleFile=true will result in a 70MB file for a simple hello world. This kind of confirms my cheap satire :D it is nice this is an option now but the mess and size is crazy. Statically built Qt programs for Windows, with a GUI, are usually around 10MB for a simple app.

    • tcm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m pretty sure that 70MB is including the entire .NET standard library, which is massive. Enabling NativeAOT or trimming reduces the size down to a few MB

    • PixxlMan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I just don’t get the obsession with small executable file sizes. 100 MB here and there hasn’t mattered at all in desktop development for many years. Feels like arbitrary goals set up just to be able to say “look there are still uses for [unmanaged language]”. And of course there are, but a 60 MB smaller executables on a desktop with several terabytes of storage just isn’t one of them. And no, developer, about to comment about how you’ve only got 5 millibits of storage on your embedded system, we’re not talking about that.

      • TCB13@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Simple, larger binaries = more time to load into memory. Why over complicate things that could’ve been made way simpler?