wget - looking for tiny version

[tomasz86]

I guess I prefer to use the latest version I can find. Mine is the same as dencorso, 1.11.4. What is the reason for your focus on file size as your primary decision factor?

I utilise wget in almost all of my scripts. Now I'm preparing a small script to automatically download hosts files from different locations, merge them and then update the system hosts file. At the moment the script is only for my own use but I'm planning to add it to UURollup / USP 5.2 as an optional component later if everything works correctly.

Wget is first downloaded using WinHttp and then is itself used to download the hosts files. The -N switch is required to make it download only newer versions of the files. If it's possible to use the 50KB sized Wget 1.6 to accomplish the same thing, then why not? I'm also 99% sure that the newest version uses more RAM than the old one (can't check now as I'm writing from an Android device Wget 1.14 uses 2.28MB of RAM).

Software nowadays is getting larger and larger in terms of file size (and memory usage) which in my opinion is in most cases a direct result of very poor (or lack of) code optimisation.

Edited January 19, 2014 by tomasz86

[bphlpt]

...

If it's possible to use the 50KB sized Wget 1.6 to accomplish the same thing, then why not?

...

Software nowadays is getting larger and larger in terms of file size (and memory usage) which in my opinion is in most cases a direct result of very poor (or lack of) code optimisation.

No argument from me. As long as the newer versions don't add any features or compatibility or capabilities that you need. I wouldn't have thought that wGet would be guilty of inefficiencies like that, unless it's the fault of whatever they used to compile the newer versions? (MS VS 2013 vs earlier versions or whatever) Who knows.

Cheers and Regards

[tomasz86]

Well, I feel that almost all software released nowadays is unnecessarily bloated. Sure, there are some exceptions, but in most cases it seems like a "rat race" where everyone is focused only on adding "new features" instead of improving the existing code.

Of course I can speak only from my experience... but to give a few examples:

1. Dropbox - I stick to Dropbox Portable which uses the older Dropbox 1.1.45 to sync data. The whole process needs around 60 MB of RAM. On the other hand, the newest version of Dropbox required 120 MB of RAM when I tried to run it some time ago. Still, synchronisation works in Dropbox Portable just fine.

2. SwiftKey keyboard (Android) - the keyboard used to need more than 80 MB of RAM on my phone. After massive complaints from users they've just released an update, and now the RAM usage is "only" 50 MB. In just one update they managed to drastically reduce the RAM usage. In my understanding, this simply means that they completely ignored optimisation before.

Edited January 20, 2014 by tomasz86

[jaclaz]

Well, JFYI, as an "extreme" example , a very simple program compiled at first attempt in 20 Kb, and it was easily tweaked in 1536 bytes, then 1024, then 512, and finally 164 bytes (or less, but Windows 7 needs 252 bytes minimum)

http://reboot.pro/topic/18792-if-anyone-is-up-for-a-challenge/

jaclaz

[tomasz86]

Well, JFYI, as an "extreme" example , a very simple program compiled at first attempt in 20 Kb, and it was easily tweaked in 1536 bytes, then 1024, then 512, and finally 164 bytes (or less, but Windows 7 needs 252 bytes minimum)

http://reboot.pro/topic/18792-if-anyone-is-up-for-a-challenge/

jaclaz

Interesting

It seems that nowadays most software developers stop at the first step (20 Kb), rarely go further (1536 bytes) and almost never optimise to the maximum (164 bytes).

I may be wrong but this is how I feel when using most of the so called "modern" / "updated" versions of the currently available popular applications.

[jaclaz]

I may be wrong but this is how I feel when using most of the so called "modern" / "updated" versions of the currently available popular applications.

Unfortunately, you are right.

The idea of "compacting" or "optimizing" anything is something that does not even cross the mind of developers today, partially because of the tools/compilers that are in use nowadays, and partially because they leverage on their own (usually "top level") hardware and on the (unfortunately correct) expectation that any user will have a comparably similar in "power" hardware (usually forced by the one or the other tool that the user needs).

If you want another example (still in the "extremely small" range) check :

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/145209-the-smallest-possible-size-of-bootsdi/

And, to corroborate your feeling , check the size growth graph of MS Office and Office-like suites:

http://www.oooninja.com/2008/05/openofficeorg-microsoft-office-moores.html

Please understand that such a suite has fundamentally the same possible uses and what they are used for (i.e. the actual things you can obtain from those) are exactly the same since around 20 years, sure the available (not used if not to make some banners or supposedly fun prints for office jokes/pranks and the like) cliparts and similar were greatly extended, but what else?

jaclaz