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 TAA02251; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:37:00 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id TAA02170 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:36:58 +0100 (MET) Received: from cmailm3.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailm3.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.193.19]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id hACIav102299 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:36:57 +0100 (MET) Received: from modem-525.beedrill.dialup.pol.co.uk ([217.135.34.13]) by cmailm3.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1AJzrM-0003yV-Bp for caml-list@inria.fr; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 18:36:56 +0000 Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 18:36:35 +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: Message-ID: References: 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 python:01 runtime:01 dlls:01 istr:01 python:01 ocaml's:01 runtime:01 exes:01 apps:01 apps:01 ocaml:01 bytecode:01 bytecode:01 executables:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Dustin Sallings wrote: > On Nov 12, 2003, at 8:14, John J Lee wrote: [...] > > I currently use Python by preference, but I'm interested in a language > > (other than C/C++!) that doesn't depend on a big runtime library and > > generates "reasonably" small executables -- modems are here to stay > > for a while yet. > > The stuff I build on my Mac ends up being about 300k so far. That > seems reasonably small to me. Thanks. From how many lines of source code? How big is the "hello world" executable? > I'm not sure what a modem has to do with your distribution, but there If you're distributing executables over the internet to people who use modems (ie., most people ;-), download size is important. > are options. You could distribute the source to your app (which will > be way smaller than the equivalent C or C++ application) and compile > elsewhere, or you can use the transfer time to bask in your > productivity and performance gains. :) Unfortunately, neither is an option. I want to distribute single executables (for Windows, anyway). Actually, another issue: can O'Caml generate Windows DLLs? ISTR some issue about that... > Python is a bad reference for two reasons: > > 1) You don't typically distribute compiled python apps (and when you > do, it's always bytecode). > 2) Ocaml's runtime is *amazingly* fast. Well, bad reference for what purposes? I don't care whether there's bytecode, machine code, or lemon jelly in my .exes, as long as they're small :-) And I don't need any speed above what Python provides. > I've prototyped a few apps in python before rewriting in ocaml for > performance. The speed gains alone are beginning to push python away > from being my primary utility app language. I like a lot about the > language as well. Great. 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