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 TAA01308; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:21:43 +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 TAA01282 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:21:42 +0100 (MET) Received: from cmailg5.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg5.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.175]) by nez-perce.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id hACILd101758 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:21:41 +0100 (MET) Received: from modem-525.beedrill.dialup.pol.co.uk ([217.135.34.13]) by cmailg5.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1AJzcP-0002B4-KK for caml-list@inria.fr; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 18:21:30 +0000 Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 18:21:11 +0000 (GMT) From: John J Lee X-X-Sender: john@alice To: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Executable size? In-Reply-To: <20031112173335.GA32347@redhat.com> Message-ID: References: <20031112173335.GA32347@redhat.com> 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 haskell:01 runtime:01 criticism:01 runtime:01 statically:01 ffi:01 compiler:01 compiler:01 ocaml:01 ocaml:01 executables:01 executables:01 nov:01 nov:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Richard Jones wrote: > On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 04:14:54PM +0000, John J Lee wrote: > > How does O'Caml compare with languages like Haskell (ghc), C and C++ for > > executable size? Does compiled code depend on a runtime library (and how > > big is that, if so)? > > This is not a criticism of OCaml, but the executables do tend to be > quite large. This seems mainly down to the fact that OCaml links the > runtime library in statically. [...] How big is the runtime? Does the compiler only link in the parts of the runtime that you use, or do you just non-negotiably get the whole thing every time you link? Probably this is a naive question, but: Is it impractical to have a functional language that uses the C runtime? Does anyone have recommendations for languages (not necessarily functional) with a compiler that generates small executables (including runtime code) for multiple platforms (at least Unix and Windows), with a decent FFI (foreign function interface), and preferably MS COM support? Am I really stuck with C++?? John ------------------- 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