From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id VAA09950; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:52:56 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from nez-perce.inria.fr (nez-perce.inria.fr [192.93.2.78]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id VAA10050 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:52:55 +0100 (MET) Received: from herd.plethora.net (herd.plethora.net [205.166.146.1]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id hACKqs112217 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 21:52:54 +0100 (MET) Received: from bhurt.plethora.net (bhurt.plethora.net [205.166.146.49]) by herd.plethora.net (8.11.6/8.10.1) with ESMTP id hACKqmC08380; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:52:48 -0600 (CST) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 15:51:54 -0600 (CST) From: Brian Hurt X-X-Sender: bhurt@localhost.localdomain To: John J Lee cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Executable size? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 non-trivial:01 debugging:01 ocaml's:01 bathroom:99 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 garbage:01 3.5:98 nov:01 overhead:03 overhead:03 executable:03 wrote:03 library:03 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, John J Lee wrote: > > In addition to a more complicated and complete standard library and > > bultins, Ocaml also has garbage collection, which is non-trivial to > > implement. I wouldn't be surprised if half or more of that 100K of > > overhead is just the GC. > > Ah, of course! > Actually, about a third of it seems to be debugging information, which goes away with strip. > > I was using it in the most literal sense- using code more than once, in > > more than one way. In general, it's much better to have only one copy of > > a function, used in two places, than two copies of the function. The > [...] > > Got you. The template explosion problem in C++, eg. > I've been trying hard not to badmouth C++ here :-). > > > I was thinking of special cases where the difference of a 100K or 1M or so > > is the difference between working and not working. If you are, for > > example, trying to fit your program on a 512K ROM, Ocaml's overhead might > > be a problem. > > Or if people are willing to download 100k but not 1M. > It would be an exceeding large program- or a delibertly perverse one- which managed to use *all* the libraries Ocaml provides. And speaking as someone who still gets onto the internet via a 56K baud modem, download a megabyte isn't that bad. I routinely get 5K/second on downloads, so a megabyte is ~3.5 minutes. It's a bathroom break, sure, but not unreasonable. -- "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea -- massive, difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." - Gene Spafford Brian ------------------- To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/ Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners