<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 25, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Clément Bera <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bera.clement@gmail.com" target="_blank">bera.clement@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote"><span class="">2014-11-25 17:24 GMT+01:00 Esteban Lorenzano <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com" target="_blank">estebanlm@gmail.com</a>></span>:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word">and btw… spur format will consume more memory.</div></blockquote><div><br></div></span><div>Why ?</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>32-bit Spur grows the image by about 15% over 32-bit V3. This is because </div><div>- all objects have a 64-bit header, whereas compact headers in V3 mean that small Arrays and CompiledMethods have a 32-bit header.</div><div>- all objects are padded to a 64-bit boundary whereas in V3 objects are padded to a 32-bit boundary.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div><div>If I remember correctly the first Squeak image generated was 3% smaller. How bigger is the spur Pharo image compared to the regular image ?</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No, that was my clerical error that I stupidly wrote up in my first blog post. I corrected the pst a while back. +15% is the consistent result nowadays.</div><div><br></div><div>Note that 64-bit Spur grows by about another 25%, giving about a 44% increase over V3.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div class="h5"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div style="word-wrap:break-word"><div>but yet, memory management will be a lot more efficient so… :P<span><font color="#888888"><br><div><br></div><div>Esteban</div></font></span><div><div><div><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On 25 Nov 2014, at 17:22, Esteban Lorenzano <<a href="mailto:estebanlm@gmail.com" target="_blank">estebanlm@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><div><div style="word-wrap:break-word">I think is you who is confusing apple and oranges. <div>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. </div><div>no games there. They are: fb, mail, whatsapp, keynote, etc. (ah, no… there is a sudoku there.. 60m :P)</div><div><br></div><div>Now… size occupied is not the same as size in memory. This is the size occupied by all app (binaries + data) and I don’t really know of how much that would be for real (I know facebook eats a lot)… Pharo, in the other side, is not using regularly (in iPhone) more than 32m when executing. That’s because you are not loading all image in memory, you paginate the loading (and Mariano’s phd demonstrated that you usually does not use more than 20% of what is inside your image, so most frequently you do not load it completely at all).</div><div><br></div><div>For DrGeo2 I needed to expand that memory to 64m, but it was still in the reasonable numbers. </div><div><br></div><div>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…)</div><div>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). </div><div><br></div><div>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. </div><div><br></div><div>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).</div><div><br></div><div>Esteban</div><div><br></div><div><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>On 25 Nov 2014, at 16:58, Esteban A. Maringolo <<a href="mailto:emaringolo@gmail.com" target="_blank">emaringolo@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br><div>Kilon,<div><br></div><div>The comparison you're doing is wrong, you're comparing apples to oranges.</div><div><br></div><div>To start with, I have Android KitKat where a clean Facebook app takes 33MB (as per the latest release), Chrome 65MB, etc. You might be counting app data as total size, but the data+cache part is variable and subject to each device.</div><div><br></div><div>20+ Megs for mobile is HUGE, the only reason to use and download such apps is if they are (or are perceived) as "indispensable", like social network, mail or browsing. Games fall into a different category, the average size for such apps take more space (but are also the first ones to be removed when available storage starts to reach its limit).</div><div><br></div><div>On the other hand you should compare Pharo apps/with other development languages/IDEs/toolkits. Leaving aside GUI-less/file based tools (which are smaller) Pharo shines during the development stage taking an order of magnitude less than many of the IDEs out there. </div><div>But the produced artifacts, being indistinguishable from the development image itself, takes the same size. </div><div><br></div><div>Because it is "self contained" it uses only a few shared libraries or even complete frameworks like JRE/.net. Pros and Cons of this approach. The resource requirements of Pharo (and most Smalltalks) is linear as you add more images, you can't leverage "common" code between them.</div><div><br></div><div>My servers are "simple web apps" that take ~40MB of image + 100+ MB of changes. All built from a clean Pharo image, with all caches flushed. For me that is A LOT. Not to mention the constant 5% CPU idling.</div><div><br></div><div>I can live with that because the benefits I get outweighs the cons mentioned before, but saying that 40MB is not big for a program is not true, and it's plainly false on mobile.</div><div><br></div><div>And in my opinion, and take this as 100% personal taste/experience, but being reckless about size/cpu requirements of the software you build leads to bloatware.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards!</div><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_quote">El Tue Nov 25 2014 at 5:07:26 AM, kilon alios <<a href="mailto:kilon.alios@gmail.com" target="_blank">kilon.alios@gmail.com</a>> escribió:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Ok here are the apps I use that loads of people also have in their phones that are more than 30 MBs<div><br></div><div>1) PDF Reader - 237MB</div><div>2) Facebook - 178 MB</div><div>3) Chrome - 148 MB</div><div>4) Respawnables (Game) 133 MB</div><div>5) Yahoo Mail - 126 MB</div><div>6) Firefox - 98 MB</div><div>7) Candy Crash Saga - 65 MB</div><div>8) G+ - 56 MB</div><div>9) Pet Rescue Saga - 53 MB</div><div>10) Google Search - 50MB</div><div>11) GMAIL - 43MB</div><div>12) Facebook Messenger - 35 MB</div><div>13) Google Maps - 32 MB</div><div>14) Twitter - 30 MB</div><div><br></div><div>Also a +1.000.000 to Marcus about the fact that in a few years 4 GB Ram will be the standard for mobile platforms. </div><div><br></div><div>Squeak is around 8Mbs but then I dont use it because it has all sort of issues on android. </div><div><br></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div></div><br></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">best,<div>Eliot</div></div>
</div></div>