← Back to context Comment by SamuelAdams 1 day ago Ha, fair. Lightweight in this context is relative to Notepad or any modern Windows application. 3 comments SamuelAdams Reply kibibu 1 day ago Notepad.exe used to be <200kB. Emacs is tens of megabytes CSm1n 20 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 16 hours ago It is right by definition. Link emacs to those controls, shed some statically linked weight, and it will also become lighter!
kibibu 1 day ago Notepad.exe used to be <200kB. Emacs is tens of megabytes CSm1n 20 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 16 hours ago It is right by definition. Link emacs to those controls, shed some statically linked weight, and it will also become lighter!
CSm1n 20 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 16 hours ago It is right by definition. Link emacs to those controls, shed some statically linked weight, and it will also become lighter!
eviks 16 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!