Re: [Caml-list] Why don't use batteries

[Dmitry Bely <dmitry.bely@gmail.com>]

On Sat, Sep 5, 2009 at 11:35 AM, David
Rajchenbach-Teller<David.Teller@ens-lyon.org> wrote:
> I take it to be a complaint against Batteries in particular
> (helloworld.native is several Mb, when linked statically) and agains the
> compiler in particular (in any given program, most of this is dead code
> which the compiler fails to remove).
>
> Xavier Leroy is aware of the issue. Maybe either he or Xavier Clerc will
> be able to look at it someday.

Returning to an old discussion

http://caml.inria.fr/pub/ml-archives/caml-list/2005/11/048f8f60868cf31d27d7fd66e3914023.en.html

I don't think it can be (and will be) done. We should live with these
big executables with considerable amount of dead code.

> Cheers,
>  David
>
> On Fri, 2009-09-04 at 15:00 +0100, Richard Jones wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 04, 2009 at 02:49:52PM +0200, Julien Signoles wrote:
>> > 3) It makes my executables too big
>> > Yes, even if it seems to be improved in a close future.
>>
>> Is this a complaint against Batteries in particular or OCaml in
>> general?  OCaml binaries in general are rather large, and it appears
>> to be because the runtime / GC is statically linked.  Do you know how
>> much this would improve with dynamic linking of libasmrun.a (which
>> IIRC was a feature added in 3.11)?
>>
>> Rich.

- Dmitry Bely