forum.vdsworld.com

jules · Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:58 pm Post subject: How important is runtime size?

Open question. How important to you is the size of the VDS runtime (and of any extension DLLs that you use)?

To me, it's quite important in a practical sense because it reduces the size of files people download from my site, and therefore reduces the bandwidth used.

From an aesthetic point of view, I like programs that are small and efficient, and dislike bloatware. We developed the VDS 5 runtime using Delphi 2 because it created a much smaller DLL than Delphi 6. It bugs me that I know there is a lot of stuff in the Delphi 6 VCL that a VDS program will never use. If I was starting to develop VDS now, I would use the Key Objects Library (KOL). I just used it to create a simple GUI app with Delphi 6 in less than 20K! But it would be a lot of work to re-implement VDS using it now (though not as much as re-implementing it using API, of course!)

So I'm interested to know what people would think if VDS 6 had a runtime that was twice the size, or 1MB, or even more. Bearing in mind that it will nearly double in size just recompiling it with Delphi 6, before any new functionality is added. (And for those who don't know, the runtime is already compressed with UPX so that isn't an option for making it smaller.)

Skit3000 · Posted: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:06 pm Post subject:

I think most things which can be downloaded on the internet, are growing bigger and bigger recent years. Just look at the size of an average webpage: 40 kb or more. Six or seven years back, it would take 20 seconds to load such a page, now it takes less than a second on most PCs. That's why I think that if the runtime DLL would grow to 1 MB, nobody really worries about it, since you only have to download it once... Smile

Just another little question, IF VDS 6 will come out with a "big" runtime DLL, maybe there should be an option with the VDS EXE files to download the runtime DLL from a central webserver, if it isn't available on the computer already... Smile

PGWARE · **Web Host** Joined: 29 Dec 2001 Posts: 1565

SnarlingSheep · Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:13 am Post subject:

Even on cable I wouldn't like a 1 MB runtime..
The problem is, there's never just one situation when you have internet clients. They could only want one of your files, meaning a built in runtime would be good, or they could want a few where an external, one-time-download, runtime would be better.
It should be an option no matter what size the runtime is, but the smaller the better of course. There are alot of people still on dialup.

jules · Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2004 7:50 am Post subject:

jules · Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:01 am Post subject:

marty · Professional Member Joined: 10 May 2001 Posts: 789

Bigger runtime DLL would not be a problem I think. I have been doing small apps with VDS for at leats 3 years now and I had to add other extensions anyway. Nobody ever complained about the size of my setup packages..( sometime up to 5 megs)

Also I am using another authoring tool and after compilation without any external DLL is about 650K (Which includes a Sound engine, most of VDS features, Flash support, VisualFX, Antilias fonts, Browser object, Alpha button support and of most of VDS functions (math, system,string manipulation,etc..) and more!) the runtime is packaged with the EXE, (which I would like to see in a future version of VDS)

Opting for Delphi 6 is a great idea. That would finally add more features to the basic VDS engine I am sure... Sometimes you have to sacrifice size for cool new features... Delphi 2 is limited but good.. I use Delphi 6 and I agree with you Jules that it would be a great idea to switch. Cant stay with Delphi 2 for ever right? Need to evolve one day..

My 2 cents.. Wink

CodeScript · Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:19 pm Post subject:

Bigger runtimes may not be liked by a sizeable proportion of ppl.
One idea would be to make a selective compilation possible - Divide the required modules into say 5 or 6 and create a runtime on the fly depending on the features used by the app in question. The IDE Will put this runtime into the project folder.
If the app doesn't find this then it would secondarily look for the single version fat runtime.
This way non-newbies can create apps which are small in size.

jules · Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:49 pm Post subject:

jules · Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:00 pm Post subject:

Skit3000

jules · Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:10 pm Post subject:

I don't know, since it comprises many different source files, but it is a lot of lines, even if you don't include the VCL source files (which of course you should Smile

)

PGWARE · **Web Host** Joined: 29 Dec 2001 Posts: 1565

For a 'self-contained' runtime couldn't you do this Julian:

Take the stub exe; include the runtimedll as a binary resource and have it extract out the dll with a TFileStream. It would do this at the very beginning of execution before running the SCRIPT portion; if the runtime is already within the system/current dir then do not extract.

I don't imagine it taking that much work but it may make the exe bigger since you would have to use TFileStream in your exe stub project.

You could even add it as an option for 'integrated' or not by allowing the compiler to decide to include the runtime as a resource into the stub or not.

SnarlingSheep · Posted: Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:38 pm Post subject:

VDS is a $99 language and the developer is worried about the extra work it would take to implement a feature that most of the customers want..
Not to mention the extra work it'd take to fix bugs already in the language.
Just one of the many reasons VDS will be crushed by it's competitors.

FreezingFire · **Admin Team** Joined: 23 Jun 2002 Posts: 3508

Sometimes I prefer VDS 2 for the sole idea of the integrated EXEs.
One thing I find bad about extracting the runtime is that if the program
is on a CD etc., then it won't be able to extract it, since it is read-only.

VDS would be so much more popular though if there was an option to
create integrated EXEs. You have no idea how good that would be.

As for runtime size, I wouldn't mind having it a little bigger and a little
better. Smile