[fluffybucktsnek]

> Who said that?

Your assertion that dependencies are the cause of the bloat is only trivially acceptable if, at least, every dependency actually contributed into the binary size, nevertheless in a significant manner. Thus it is a counterpoint.

Which brings to...

> No, they add up to 50MB.

You are just asserting this. The thread you linked doesn't really support this. So I'm asking for actual proof, like a disassembly, or analysis through other tooling.

[CyberDildonics]

Your assertion that dependencies are the cause of the bloat is only trivially acceptable if, at least, every dependency actually contributed into the binary size, nevertheless in a significant manner. Thus it is a counterpoint.

That makes zero sense. That's like saying your luggage can't be too heavy because it contains a feather. Think about this super hard.

So I'm asking for actual proof, like a disassembly, or analysis through other tooling.

You think you need disassembly to see file sizes?

[fluffybucktsnek]

> That's like saying your luggage can't be too heavy because it contains a feather. Think about it super hard.

There's nothing to think here. This analogy is stupid at best, profoundly ignorant at worst. We both agree that the binary is 50MB (the weight), so the "luggage can't be too heavy" is already nonsense.

> You think you need disassembly to see file sizes?

I mean the cause for the 50MB, if that wasn't clear (somehow).

[CyberDildonics]

This analogy is stupid at best, profoundly ignorant at worst.

No it isn't. If you could explain why you would have already. Saying that some dependencies aren't heavy so the problem isn't dependencies doesn't make any sense. Huge bloated binaries are from lots of bloated dependencies because people aren't actually writing 50 MB of stuff to do what they need.

[fluffybucktsnek]

> If you could explain why you have already.

I have my suspicions. But I rather speak with certainty rather than spout unfounded hypotheses as facts.

> Saying that some dependencies aren't heavy so the problem isn't dependencies doesn't make sense.

If I did say that. I said that isn't necessarily dependencies, because you have yet to prove it. If you do prove it, then that is that. As of now, all you've shown is that thread.

> Huge bloated binaries are from lots of bloated dependencies because people aren't actually writing 50MB of stuff to do what they need.

Restating what I've said prior, you are just asserting this, but have yet to prove it. For starters, what are the specific bloated dependencies? How much space does each dependency actually occupy in the final binary? A disassembly would answer those really quickly.

[CyberDildonics]

what are the specific bloated dependencies?

Not a single data structure, that's for sure. Have you ever programmed before?

[fluffybucktsnek]

> Not a single data structure, that's for sure.

Even though you have to actually substantantiate this, for the sake of brevity, let's go with it. All you have crossed is a single potential cause, not proven a particular one.

> Have you ever programmed before?

Let's say I haven't. How would it impact your argument? Whether I'm a programmer or not won't magically substantiate your position.