PureBasic Forums - English

About the compiled sizes for simple windows and gadgets programs:
For PB5.73 LTS for win64 a compiled program just for windows formularies sized 14kb.
For PB6.10 LTS for win64, the same compiled with standard and the same configuration, is sized 944kb.
Is it the expected behaviour?

Psychophanta wrote: Tue Apr 02, 2024 7:20 am Is it the expected behaviour?

Yes. See Fred's blog post on the issue -> https://www.purebasic.fr/blog/?p=538

Thanks but the "C" option compiler is not used

Psychophanta wrote: Tue Apr 02, 2024 7:20 am About the compiled sizes for simple windows and gadgets programs:
For PB5.73 LTS for win64 a compiled program just for windows formularies sized 14kb.
For PB6.10 LTS for win64, the same compiled with standard and the same configuration, is sized 944kb.
Is it the expected behaviour?

It's most likely to do with the update to the c runtime, which has been changed to VS22 MS UCRT. It addresses a number of security issues and also eases the burden for the dev team building PB libs and it also makes it easier for us to build static libs.

just as well we don't have 360kb disks any more.

Ok idle. Well, it doesn't matter, when I want mini executables, then I go to 5.46, or my beloved 5.10

Psychophanta wrote: Tue Apr 02, 2024 7:36 am Ok idle. Well, it doesn't matter, when I want mini executables, then I go to 5.46, or my beloved 5.10

6.04 should be small still.

Thanks for the update Fred & team.

I struggle to understand the concern over growing executable sizes - surely the issue is completely irrelevant in the age of tb storage & fast internet? Are the complainants still using floppy disks for their backups?

Purposefully limiting the executable size has stood in the way of progress for a number of years IMO.

idle wrote: Tue Apr 02, 2024 8:02 am 6.04 should be small still.

WaW
That's right, !

Before and after V6.10, the volume of changes in each compiled program is fixed or proportional?

I suppose that the size depends largely on which libraries are included, some have grown, but no matter, it's still very small
Many thanks for version 6.10 and all the good work done

History page need to be updated

My priority for EXE => accurate, fast, something I have not thought about yet, something else, size.

My priority for EXE =>
1.- fast
2.- accurate
3.- smallest size

What do you mean by accurate? It's more important to calculate 2+2 than to return the right result??
?

Not as simple as that obviously.
But, there are cases where algebraic rules vary from ideal. Or when asm and cbe compiles do not match. Or when a bug forces a change in scope.

These slow development and release of your app.
Size of the app exe is so far down the list it could be last.