Comment by SamuelAdams 13 hours ago Ha, fair. Lightweight in this context is relative to Notepad or any modern Windows application. 3 comments SamuelAdams Reply kibibu 12 hours ago Notepad.exe used to be <200kB. Emacs is tens of megabytes CSm1n 8 hours ago Notepad was just a wrapper around some default win32 controls. Judging alone by exe size is not right, although probably a “statically linked” notepad would still be smaller than emacs eviks 4 hours ago It is right by definition. Link emacs to those controls, shed some statically linked weight, and it will also become lighter!
kibibu 12 hours ago Notepad.exe used to be <200kB. Emacs is tens of megabytes CSm1n 8 hours ago Notepad was just a wrapper around some default win32 controls. Judging alone by exe size is not right, although probably a “statically linked” notepad would still be smaller than emacs eviks 4 hours ago It is right by definition. Link emacs to those controls, shed some statically linked weight, and it will also become lighter!
CSm1n 8 hours ago Notepad was just a wrapper around some default win32 controls. Judging alone by exe size is not right, although probably a “statically linked” notepad would still be smaller than emacs eviks 4 hours ago It is right by definition. Link emacs to those controls, shed some statically linked weight, and it will also become lighter!
eviks 4 hours ago It is right by definition. Link emacs to those controls, shed some statically linked weight, and it will also become lighter!
Notepad.exe used to be <200kB. Emacs is tens of megabytes
Notepad was just a wrapper around some default win32 controls. Judging alone by exe size is not right, although probably a “statically linked” notepad would still be smaller than emacs
It is right by definition. Link emacs to those controls, shed some statically linked weight, and it will also become lighter!