You can play it in your browser here.

  • mPony@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    yeah, you know what?.. no. This is the kind of attitude that got us here to begin with. Yes, processers get faster, and yes size gets more available. But that shouldn’t be an excuse for poorly-written code.
    An empty Microsoft Word document is larger than the first word processing program I ever used. That is just crazy when you think about it. but “oh people have lots of resources they’re not even using so it doesn’t matter”, right? When companies have this attitude of “oh the resources are there I may as well use all of them for myself” then their code runs like garbage and you need a faster computer just to make it work halfways decently. And because of this we all end up on this goddamned technology treadmill where we have to keep buying bigger and faster and more expensive computers to do the same thing the old computers did just because the programs written for it are too bloated and the people writing the code couldn’t be arsed to make it work well. It wastes our time and our money. I reject that. I think others should too.

    • imecth@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      poorly written code and tight code

      This is where you guys lose me, it’s just code that not optimized for size and that’s because most people don’t give a shit about that. People want want their 4k assets, their localization, their accessibility features, their application to run on any device… All this comes at a cost. You want to change things, that’s fine, but start by understanding why things are the way they are because shitting on developers won’t get you anywhere.

    • frezik@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      If you’re old enough, then the first word processing program you ever used was probably on a screen 640x480 pixels or smaller, didn’t support internationalization, couldn’t provide true WYSIWYG to match output between the screen and a printer, and couldn’t render fonts with anti-aliasing. Which of these features would you like to drop to reduce the size?

      Everyone loves “tight” programs until they realize what they have to give up to make it work.

      • ඞmir
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Fonts can be handled by Windows itself.

        I don’t care about internationalization, just EN-US is good enough.

        Having more pixels doesn’t change asset sizes when the pixels used per asset are the same. Just show me the smaller button or use vector graphics.