From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 References: <20130323100519.GA3980@polynum.com> <19750d1b50c54941f031f57dc4be456e@proxima.alt.za> <5099C9E8-C6E8-4B6B-A609-B5BDCA6C332F@lsub.org> <5C91EC08-2559-4DA8-B6F3-9293747EEFE8@gmail.com> <20130323173739.GA3314@polynum.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0) In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: Cc: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> From: David Leimbach Date: Sat, 23 Mar 2013 16:03:45 -0700 To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] gcc not an option for Plan9 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 32185a66-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 Yup Sent from my iPhone On Mar 23, 2013, at 12:17 PM, Rob Pike wrote: > It's pointless to complain about the size of "hello world". It's not a > real program. In Go's case it's larger than a C binary because the > libraries (and the presence of a runtime) are capable of much more > under the covers, but by the time you write a real program in Go > you'll find the ratio of Go binary to C binary isn't nearly so large; > the incremental cost to the binary of a Go source file compared to a C > Go file is negligible. >=20 > A house is much heavier than a tent, but it also has a much stronger found= ation. >=20 > -rob >=20