Strying off topic, but Re: text editor
illoai at gmail.com
illoai at gmail.com
Thu Jun 3 14:14:21 UTC 2010
On 31 May 2010 17:38, Chad Perrin <perrin at apotheon.com> wrote:
> I meant to reply to the list, as a response to this, but accidentally
> replied directly to Giorgos Keramidas.
> On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 08:45:07PM +0300, Giorgos Keramidas wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 May 2010 09:59:00 -0600, Chad Perrin <perrin at apotheon.com> wrote:
>> > Does Vim install more than the binary? I've got this:
>> > > ls -l /usr/local/bin/vim
>> > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root wheel 1650340 Apr 18 12:20 /usr/local/bin/vim
>> Yes, it does: help files; syntax highlighting rules; manpages; around 14
>> binaries in /usr/local/bin; including more than a thousand files in
> After some off-list discussion, it has come to my attention that of the
> 14 "binaries" that are "installed", one of them is the vim binary itself,
> two of them are vimtutor binaries, one is a hex dumper, and the other ten
> are links (hard or soft) to the vim binary itself (and thus not actually
> separate binaries). It seems kind of silly to include a tutor and a
> hexdumper in the "size" of the editor just because the port for that
> editor installs them, too. Furthermore, documentation like manpages and
> help files should not count against an application's size in my opinion,
> since more documentation is a *good* thing, and counting it toward the
> size of the application is marking it in the *bad* column.
> The grand total size of that hex dumper and two tutor binaries is about
> 15KB, by the way -- so even if you include them with the editor for
> determining its size, they're still pretty negligible.
> Considering I could just delete all the syntax highlighting files and it
> wouldn't even affect the way I use Vim (I tend to prefer monochrome, even
> when editing code), I don't realy think I'd count those against the size
> of Vim either.
> Vim looks pretty small to me, compared with other editors of similar
> power (emacs, GUI IDEs, et cetera).
I don't know much, but the source tarball is slightly
In any case, the executable size is only loosely
related to the actual running size.
More information about the freebsd-questions