Re: Why are Xcode "updates" so friggin' big??
Re: Why are Xcode "updates" so friggin' big??
- Subject: Re: Why are Xcode "updates" so friggin' big??
- From: AgentM <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 11:54:28 -0500
On Nov 2, 2006, at 11:25 , Laurence Harris wrote:
On Nov 2, 2006, at 6:47 AM, Markus Hitter wrote:
Am 02.11.2006 um 12:13 schrieb Andy O'Meara:
A delta update for Xcode would be a nightmare for both us and the
Xcode team
if you think about it.
If I think about it, a brute force algorithm (full download) is
always the least intelligent choice. It appears to be the only
reliable one these days, though.
It may require less thought and work, but that's not the same as
being the least intelligent choice. Sometimes, after considering
all the options, the easy, simple approach is the best, or at least
as good as any other.
FWIW, this reminds me of one of my pet peeves about Mac OS X
software, which is that almost all bundled software installs all
available language resources. Wouldn't it be smarter and use less
disk space to only distribute the languages a user wants? I
distribute language-specific builds of my product -- English, and
English + one other language -- and I've never had a single user
complain that I don't offer one with all languages. And yet
everyone takes the easy way out, even though many people would
prefer to not have a lot or language resources they never use. If I
deleted all of the non-English .lproj folders on my system volume
I'd get rid of over 150,000 files and folders, and free up 2GB of
disk space. But a language-specific approach would involve a lot
more work and complicate installations, so we have the one-size-
fits-all approach instead.
You can do this after-the-fact:
http://monolingual.sourceforge.net/
Bytes are cheap- developer time is not.
-M
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Xcode-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden