• JoYo
    link
    fedilink
    English
    46 months ago

    very nice, now let’s see that binary size.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      186 months ago

      Unless the binary size difference is insane, who would say “oh well we were going to pick the library that wasn’t riddled with security issues but we decided to save 2MB instead, hope that makes you feel better about your $12m cybersecurity fine!”.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        46 months ago

        There are only going to be edge-cases where the binary size will really cause headache. Individual projects probably won’t worry too much about a size difference if it’s less than 10-20MB.

        • JoYo
          link
          fedilink
          English
          36 months ago

          my whole career is those edge cases

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            76 months ago

            I don’t doubt that some places care about a 1MB size difference. After all, some embedded systems with limited storage need every megabyte they can spare.

      • JoYo
        link
        fedilink
        English
        16 months ago

        yes, i know people that will pay 12m to save 2mb.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      -66 months ago

      I can’t be bothered to build them but looking at the releases on GitHub openssl 3.4.0 is 17.5mb and rustls is 2.6mb. both of these releases are source files not binaries but I don’t see how rustls could possibly be larger than openssl.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        186 months ago

        Comparing source code sizes is completely meaningless. Rust projects are usually smaller with far more granular dependencies.