10 ms·

> minimal https://github.com/helix-editor/helix/issues/6187 https://github.com/helix-editor/helix/issues/6187

by 38 1y ago

watersb 1y ago
> As an example, here's the official Alpine package: https://pkgs.alpinelinux.org/package/edge/community/x86_64/helix https://pkgs.alpinelinux.org/package/edge/community/x86_64/h... > It comes with no grammars installed and it's up to the user to install what they need ... and the grammars can be shared with other editors.
OptionX 1y ago
111mb is bloat apparently in a time where storage is in the terabytes.
- johnisgood 1y ago
  111 MB for a text editor is acceptable? I mean I get it, "we" are getting conditioned to it, but...
  - OptionX 1y ago
    The editor is 10mb. It's the grammar files that are represent the bulk, and those are optional. And yes. Complaining about 100mb nowadays is ridiculous. You probably have larger logfiles sitting somewhere in disk doing nothing right now, regardless of your OS.
    - bigfatkitten 1y ago
      And it’s a 10MB static binary I can just drop into ~/.local/bin and have Just Work(tm)
    - johnisgood 1y ago
      I know, I was talking about a hypothetical text editor being 100 MB (without grammar files). And those log files can be easily wiped or rotated (i.e. compressed, which can greatly reduce their size), as they should. You do not do the same with your other files, do you?
      - johnisgood 1y ago
        Why the down-vote? You don't rotate your logs? Thought it is commonplace. Rotating logs includes compressing old ones. Or are your log files actually over 100 MB? Why? What are you printing? Output of "yes"? :D As someone mentioned, Emacs is over 100 MB, so it does not have to be hypothetical. That said, I use emacs (and vim) interchangeably and I have nothing against it. I have LibreOffice, too, which is also a behemoth, but so is Haskell with its modules that I see getting updated regularly. In any case, I still prefer KISS and the fewer bloat as possible.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - mlry 1y ago
    Long forgotten the times back in the days during the Great Editor Wars when Emacs was shunned as an acronym for "Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping". The youth of today ...
    - johnisgood 1y ago
      I am old enough to remember that. :D
    - usef- 1y ago
      Emacs binary download page pointed me to Windows, but for comparison: 141MB: emacs-30.1-nodeps.zip 75MB: emacs-30.1-installer.exe (better compression? Contents seem similar) 27MB helix-25.07-x86_64-windows.zip So there's still an Emacs distinction, it seems (*not that these size differences matter in practice -- helix's "bulk" is all in compiled language grammars, each of which is not loaded unless you use the language.)
      - usef- 1y ago
        (replying to myself) Alpine package sizes: - helix 10.3MiB (+ 3 dependencies: musl, libgcc, sh) - emacs 14.5MiB (+ 1 dependency: musl) - neovim 18.7MiB (+ 9 dependencies musl, lua, tree-sitter, libint, libluv, unibilium, utf8proc, libuv, libluajit)) So it doesn't seem out of the ordinary for popular cli editors, if you're worried about smaller environments.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
- cardanome 1y ago
  I mean a base Mac Mini in 2025 comes with 256GB of storage. Some storage is still damn expensive. But regardless, if someone were to only ever installing Helix on their system, you might have a point. But you probably want to install many applications and if every applications starts wasting storage, you will soon run out of space.
  - kstrauser 1y ago
    Yes, but 111MB is .04% of 256GB. Install a hundred such "wasteful" apps and you're up to a whole 4% of that storage.
  - usef- 1y ago
    Almost all the size is language grammars, which are optional and removable. Some distros like Alpine make them separate packages. But for desktop use, I think it's a good default to have everything "just work" out-of-the-box, because 110mb is nothing for typical developer machines.
    - xigoi 1y ago
      Have you considered that professional developers who can afford expensive computers are not the only ones using a text editor?
      - usef- 1y ago
        Absolutely, I used one for many years before I was professional. Out of curiosity, what hardware are you picturing those people running it on? I've run Helix on a Daylight computer, which has a deliberately underpowered CPU (MediaTek Helio G99) and it's incredibly fast/snappy. 110mb is still near-trivial on the 128GB storage. If you're (validly) worried about bloated software, note that Alpine's helix package is 10.3MB, which is smaller than their Neovim or Emacs packages. Individual language files are small (python is ~500kb uncompressed), there are just hundreds of supported languages. But installed ones are not loaded unless you edit the language.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
stusmall 1y ago
I agree. I can't fit this on my hard drive. I've had this 386 for 30 years. Why should I have to upgrade it just for some text editor?
- xpe 1y ago
  Same. Or — just an idea — maybe it is time to kickstart an adapter so that we can plug a 386 into a LGA 1700 socket? A little underclocking, instruction translation, voltage conversion and presto.
burgerrito 1y ago
Do correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't grammar files optional?
- 38 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - burgerrito 1y ago
    It'd be better if you explain, rather than replying with a Tenor GIF link... ... in a website that does not even support GIF attachment

> minimal https://github.com/helix-editor/helix/issues/6187 https://github.com/helix-editor/helix/issues/6187

by 38 1y ago

> minimal https://github.com/helix-editor/helix/issues/6187 https://github.com/helix-editor/helix/issues/6187

> As an example, here's the official Alpine package: https://pkgs.alpinelinux.org/package/edge/community/x86_64/helix https://pkgs.alpinelinux.org/package/edge/community/x86_64/h... > It comes with no grammars installed and it's up to the user to install what they need ... and the grammars can be shared with other editors.

OptionX 1y ago

111mb is bloat apparently in a time where storage is in the terabytes.

johnisgood 1y ago
111 MB for a text editor is acceptable? I mean I get it, "we" are getting conditioned to it, but...
- OptionX 1y ago
  The editor is 10mb. It's the grammar files that are represent the bulk, and those are optional. And yes. Complaining about 100mb nowadays is ridiculous. You probably have larger logfiles sitting somewhere in disk doing nothing right now, regardless of your OS.
  - bigfatkitten 1y ago
    And it’s a 10MB static binary I can just drop into ~/.local/bin and have Just Work(tm)
  - johnisgood 1y ago
    I know, I was talking about a hypothetical text editor being 100 MB (without grammar files). And those log files can be easily wiped or rotated (i.e. compressed, which can greatly reduce their size), as they should. You do not do the same with your other files, do you?
    - johnisgood 1y ago
      Why the down-vote? You don't rotate your logs? Thought it is commonplace. Rotating logs includes compressing old ones. Or are your log files actually over 100 MB? Why? What are you printing? Output of "yes"? :D As someone mentioned, Emacs is over 100 MB, so it does not have to be hypothetical. That said, I use emacs (and vim) interchangeably and I have nothing against it. I have LibreOffice, too, which is also a behemoth, but so is Haskell with its modules that I see getting updated regularly. In any case, I still prefer KISS and the fewer bloat as possible.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- mlry 1y ago
  Long forgotten the times back in the days during the Great Editor Wars when Emacs was shunned as an acronym for "Eight Megabytes And Constantly Swapping". The youth of today ...
  - johnisgood 1y ago
    I am old enough to remember that. :D
  - usef- 1y ago
    Emacs binary download page pointed me to Windows, but for comparison: 141MB: emacs-30.1-nodeps.zip 75MB: emacs-30.1-installer.exe (better compression? Contents seem similar) 27MB helix-25.07-x86_64-windows.zip So there's still an Emacs distinction, it seems (*not that these size differences matter in practice -- helix's "bulk" is all in compiled language grammars, each of which is not loaded unless you use the language.)
    - usef- 1y ago
      (replying to myself) Alpine package sizes: - helix 10.3MiB (+ 3 dependencies: musl, libgcc, sh) - emacs 14.5MiB (+ 1 dependency: musl) - neovim 18.7MiB (+ 9 dependencies musl, lua, tree-sitter, libint, libluv, unibilium, utf8proc, libuv, libluajit)) So it doesn't seem out of the ordinary for popular cli editors, if you're worried about smaller environments.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
cardanome 1y ago
I mean a base Mac Mini in 2025 comes with 256GB of storage. Some storage is still damn expensive. But regardless, if someone were to only ever installing Helix on their system, you might have a point. But you probably want to install many applications and if every applications starts wasting storage, you will soon run out of space.
- kstrauser 1y ago
  Yes, but 111MB is .04% of 256GB. Install a hundred such "wasteful" apps and you're up to a whole 4% of that storage.
- usef- 1y ago
  Almost all the size is language grammars, which are optional and removable. Some distros like Alpine make them separate packages. But for desktop use, I think it's a good default to have everything "just work" out-of-the-box, because 110mb is nothing for typical developer machines.
  - xigoi 1y ago
    Have you considered that professional developers who can afford expensive computers are not the only ones using a text editor?
    - usef- 1y ago
      Absolutely, I used one for many years before I was professional. Out of curiosity, what hardware are you picturing those people running it on? I've run Helix on a Daylight computer, which has a deliberately underpowered CPU (MediaTek Helio G99) and it's incredibly fast/snappy. 110mb is still near-trivial on the 128GB storage. If you're (validly) worried about bloated software, note that Alpine's helix package is 10.3MB, which is smaller than their Neovim or Emacs packages. Individual language files are small (python is ~500kb uncompressed), there are just hundreds of supported languages. But installed ones are not loaded unless you edit the language.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

stusmall 1y ago

I agree. I can't fit this on my hard drive. I've had this 386 for 30 years. Why should I have to upgrade it just for some text editor?

xpe 1y ago
Same. Or — just an idea — maybe it is time to kickstart an adapter so that we can plug a 386 into a LGA 1700 socket? A little underclocking, instruction translation, voltage conversion and presto.

burgerrito 1y ago

Do correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't grammar files optional?

38 1y ago
[flagged]
- burgerrito 1y ago
  It'd be better if you explain, rather than replying with a Tenor GIF link... ... in a website that does not even support GIF attachment