Minimal install

[marcov]

As @wp mentioned in his post, a "minimal install" would not be much smaller than the full install.

Yes. There are many ways to reduce disc footprint, but they are complicated. That's why I recommended also somewhat different solutions like compressed filesystems, since that avoids the complications and still saves space.

I did some cutting down of existing installs myself about a decade ago when preparing the images for the student laptops.  Those (maths and/or CS) students only did a few well delineated courses with Lazarus, so that was prudent.

One of the problems of cutting down installs rather than making a custom setup is that manually intervention might cause the uninstaller to exit on errors, disallowing students to deinstall after they completed the course. But as said that was all long ago, partially even before the inno setup installers.

[MarkMLl]

You just indicated yourself that Lazarus is not the resource hog.
A hint to improve the situation: Install a good Linux distro and your old Windows computer turns into a fast super-computer.

As 440bx mentioned, Lazarus is a tiny snappy IDE compared to other massive IDEs. I am happy it is.

I'm not entirely happy recommending Linux as a universal panacea: its architecture is getting increasingly baroque and when it breaks there might quite simply be no fix if the person responsible is no longer interested.

However at this stage it is fair to ask how big a functional Lazarus installation is relative to Delphi, and then to compare the functionality provided (e.g. ability to trace into library routines, support for multiple platforms and so on).

MarkMLl

[Handoko]

Sorry, off topic.

Linux is more resource friendly because it is less bloated. Linux and most of its software are free, they build for functionality. Windows and many of its software, they build for commercial.

Adobe Photoshop, CorelDraw, AutoCAD are very expensive. To be able to sell high, they have to put a lot of 'features', which are usually not necessary. For example, AutoCAD - the architectural/mechanical drawing software installation comes with database and dictionary features.
Source: https://documentation.help/AutoCAD-Land-Desktop-2009/del_select_the_installation_type_custom.png

For comparison AutoCAD 2023 installation size is 2.5 GB. Its open source alternative is LibreCAD, which is about 50 MB only. What can be drawn using AutoCAD, can be drawn also using LibreCAD. I use LibreCAD so I know about it.

It is understandable, why they need to make it bloated. The price of AutoCAD is about $2000 per year. People will be less willing to spend such money if the installation size is less than 100 MB. And because it is bloated with plenty of useless features, they have to be customizable to allow users have minimal installation.

I am glad to know Lazarus installation size is so small compare to the others. It is good if Lazarus can have smaller installation size but I don't think the effort worth. As it is already mentioned the size reduction is not great and the harddisk capacity grows exponentially big compare to its price. A 128 GB SSD (Cina brand) is less then $10. I bought several of them, and they are working good so far.

Switching from Windows to Linux isn't easy. Linux has its own problems:
https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,64974.msg494650.html#msg494650
One thing for sure Linux and its software are less bloated.

[MarkMLl]

Sorry, off topic.

Linux is more resource friendly because it is less bloated. Linux and most of its software are free, they build for functionality. Windows and many of its software, they build for commercial.

Yes, it is off-topic and we really shouldn't allow it to go too far. But neither should we attempt to persuade somebody who is only marginally unhappy with his current OS to jump ship for something totally alien to him. Unless of course you are happy shouldering the support burden, because I certainly wouldn't be.

Speaking as somebody who has been using Linux since the early 90s, and who has barely touched Windows since the early 00s, I have reservations: by now the entire GLX stack is vastly complex, and application code is often as bloated as its Windows equivalent without the fallback of a commercial publisher who can usually be browbeaten into giving some level of support.

Have you ever actually tried to use something like FreeCAD?

MarkMLl

[Handoko]

Have you ever actually tried to use something like FreeCAD?

Of course I already tried.

[MarkMLl]

Of course I already tried.

In that case you're obviously familiar with the topological naming problem, which does not occur to anything like the same extent in (reputable) commercial software.

MarkMLl

[user name]

Oh and I have no idea what "pajeet" is supposed to mean.

it's a term for sloppy incompetent lazy etc programmer. it's a reference to the sad reality of outsourced cheap labor that is widespread nowadays

Worse, the exact details are unknown. But it won't be just one-off work, there will be a very long term maintenance attached to it too.

That is minimalism for minimalism's sake. It is never little enough. That is not a healthy view.

But Lazarus is basically a dynamic system because it can recompile itself with changes. That complicate things immensely. It is not read-only but read-write.

Random cutting is not a solution

yeah I understand that fine control over what's installed is complicated
and i have no idea how it works internally i'm just a stupid end-user
if its designed to be that way and its too much work to change ok
but the point is not to just make things smaller

the suggestion to have code-completion and resources compiled into single files is reasonable
that would not qualify as random cutting
and those package files i mentioned would be read-write; a file system inside the file system works just as any other
and the code information database itself would need a few additional megabytes
of course thats perfectly fine because it would improve things

[440bx]

it's a term for sloppy incompetent lazy etc programmer. it's a reference to the sad reality of outsourced cheap labor that is widespread nowadays

so, it's a derogatory term which you use to paint those who have a different opinion than yours. 

yeah I understand that fine control over what's installed is complicated
and i have no idea how it works internally i'm just a stupid end-user

but those who have the knowledge to implement what you admitted to being unable to implement are "pajeets".

comparisons with V*sual St*dio make no sense. that is a bloated monster.

I have to agree that VS is "a bit" on the bloated side.  One thing I don't understand is why you put asterisks in the reference to Visual Studio, as bloated as it is, it is not an offensive term (at least not to most programmers I know.)

indeed comparisons to Delphi as MarkMLI said would make more sense

Yes and no because Lazarus, unlike Delphi, depends on having some of the source code available to function as intended.  That is already a significant difference between the two environments.   IOW, no comparison is going to be a fair match because of the different implementation philosophies.

dude i never said it's a resource hog or anything no on the contrary it starts up really quickly and CPU and memory usage are really low again i just suggested some possible improvements to make things even better you see
i pointed out some extreme cases just for illustration purposes

but, you are complaining about its size.  Sizewise and, considering everything it does and can potentially do (what it can potentially do is very important), its size is not unreasonable at all and, I personally don't think worth complaining about.

If you feel that strongly about the size of the Lazarus installation, there is a very simple solution, identify what you believe you will never use and create a script to delete the files involved.   Run that script after every Lazarus install.  Please, don't say that requires work on your part, because that would show a character trait ("not wanting to work") which you have, and continue to, deride. I presume you don't want to be the target of your own derisive comments.

but it's sad to see HDD price mentioned again that's not a central point this is about efficiency above all and that type of reasoning leads to pajeet mentality and naturally one should expect Pascal programmers to be better than that if thats the way it is because nowadays things are like that why dont we all just join the pajeet hordes i mean we already have a Pascal to j*vascript converter

The HDD price is important because that's what determines _most_ of the space cost of a software installation.  At current hard drive prices, a Lazarus installation costs approximately $0.014.  Again, personally, I think this "problem" isn't something that deserves much concern currently.  Shaving 300MB of the installation would save roughly 20% of the cost.  At that rate, after accumulating the savings for a few years, there might be enough to purchase some chewing gum (inflation permitting.)

[marcov]

the suggestion to have code-completion and resources compiled into single files is reasonable

How can it be reasonable if you say it you don't know how it works ?

And keep in mind (again!) that Lazarus compiles itself if packages are added. For that the source is also needed. And that is by the compiler, and not the codetools.

that would not qualify as random cutting
and those package files i mentioned would be read-write; a file system inside the file system works just as any other
and the code information database itself would need a few additional megabytes
of course thats perfectly fine because it would improve things

So just mount a filesystem yourself then, or set NTFS compression bits on the drive you install too. That solution doesn't need Lazarus work. Just a custom installer that you can do yourself.

[PascalDragon]

In the future once dynamic packages are supported Lazarus will need to be able to deal with that, but that point is still a long time (read: years) off, so for now you'll have to live with this.

yeah hope that happens one day
but the code completion part does not depend on that right?

Yes, code completion depends on that. Without sources available as of right now, the code completion is essentially unusable. Not to mention as others said, the sources for the IDE, the LCL and required packages are necessary for recompilation of the IDE.