Re: Porting windows app to OS X and it's extremely huge as a result
Re: Porting windows app to OS X and it's extremely huge as a result
- Subject: Re: Porting windows app to OS X and it's extremely huge as a result
- From: "Sherm Pendley" <email@hidden>
- Date: Sat, 24 May 2008 09:11:38 -0400
On Sat, May 24, 2008 at 6:50 AM, Platon Fomichev <
email@hidden> wrote:
I am porting a huge Windows application to OS X - I have to keep lots of code intact and this is a requirement - as a parallel I am also doing Linux port. The resulting binary is extremely big and can't be compared to either Win32 and Linux.
You're right, it *can't* be compared to either, so we can stop right here.
Mac binaries are normally built for *two* architectures, PPC and Intel. With the introduction of Leopard and its 64-bit support, we're even beginning to see them built for 32- and 64-bit versions of each. So, even assuming that a given app compiles to the same size binary for Windows on Intel 32-bit and Mac OS X on Intel 32-bit, the Mac binary is still going to be from 2-4 times bigger overall because it also has binaries for other architectures.
This is really bad for customers as size is a critical priority.
You'll find it's not so critical for Mac users, if it does actually turn out to be the result of multiple architecture support. We're in the midst of two rapid hardware shifts, from PPC to Intel, and from 32 to 64 bit on both, so *everybody's* binaries are bigger, not just yours. We're used to this by now, and we won't blame you for it. :-)
sherm--
--
Cocoa programming in Perl:
http://camelbones.sourceforge.net
_______________________________________________
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