> I had observed binaries beyond 25GiB, including debug symbols. How is this possible? These companies prefer to statically build their services to speed up startup and simplify deployment. Statically including all code in some of the world’s largest codebases is a recipe for massive binaries.
I am very sympathetic to wanting nice static binaries that can be shipped around as a single artifact[0], but... surely at some point we have to ask if it's worth it? If nothing else, that feels like a little bit of a code smell; surely if your actual executable code doesn't even fit in 2GB it's time to ask if that's really one binary's worth of code or if you're actually staring at like... a dozen applications that deserve to be separate? Or get over it the other way and accept that sometimes the single artifact you ship is a tarball / OCI image / EROFS image for systemd[1] to mount+run / self-extracting archive[2] / ...
[0] Seriously, one of my background projects right now is trying to figure out if it's really that hard to make fat ELF binaries.
I am very sympathetic to wanting nice static binaries that can be shipped around as a single artifact[0], but... surely at some point we have to ask if it's worth it? If nothing else, that feels like a little bit of a code smell; surely if your actual executable code doesn't even fit in 2GB it's time to ask if that's really one binary's worth of code or if you're actually staring at like... a dozen applications that deserve to be separate? Or get over it the other way and accept that sometimes the single artifact you ship is a tarball / OCI image / EROFS image for systemd[1] to mount+run / self-extracting archive[2] / ...
[0] Seriously, one of my background projects right now is trying to figure out if it's really that hard to make fat ELF binaries.
[1] https://systemd.io/PORTABLE_SERVICES/
[2] https://justine.lol/ape.html > "PKZIP Executables Make Pretty Good Containers"