111 MB for a text editor is acceptable? I mean I get it, "we" are getting conditioned to it, but...
And yes. Complaining about 100mb nowadays is ridiculous. You probably have larger logfiles sitting somewhere in disk doing nothing right now, regardless of your OS.
And those log files can be easily wiped or rotated (i.e. compressed, which can greatly reduce their size), as they should. You do not do the same with your other files, do you?
As someone mentioned, Emacs is over 100 MB, so it does not have to be hypothetical. That said, I use emacs (and vim) interchangeably and I have nothing against it. I have LibreOffice, too, which is also a behemoth, but so is Haskell with its modules that I see getting updated regularly. In any case, I still prefer KISS and the fewer bloat as possible.
141MB: emacs-30.1-nodeps.zip
75MB: emacs-30.1-installer.exe (better compression? Contents seem similar)
27MB helix-25.07-x86_64-windows.zip
So there's still an Emacs distinction, it seems
(*not that these size differences matter in practice -- helix's "bulk" is all in compiled language grammars, each of which is not loaded unless you use the language.)
Alpine package sizes:
- helix 10.3MiB (+ 3 dependencies: musl, libgcc, sh)
- emacs 14.5MiB (+ 1 dependency: musl)
- neovim 18.7MiB (+ 9 dependencies musl, lua, tree-sitter, libint, libluv, unibilium, utf8proc, libuv, libluajit))
So it doesn't seem out of the ordinary for popular cli editors, if you're worried about smaller environments.