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 AAA18353; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 00:59:39 +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 AAA18499 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 00:59:38 +0100 (MET) Received: from cmailg3.svr.pol.co.uk (cmailg3.svr.pol.co.uk [195.92.195.173]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id hACNxb112864 for ; Thu, 13 Nov 2003 00:59:37 +0100 (MET) Received: from modem-111.duckdive.dialup.pol.co.uk ([62.25.152.111]) by cmailg3.svr.pol.co.uk with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1AK4fN-0005Ls-Cv for caml-list@inria.fr; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:44:53 +0000 Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:44:48 +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: <3FB2B050.8050901@atcorp.com> Message-ID: References: <3FB2B050.8050901@atcorp.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 currying:01 o'caml's:01 runtime:01 runtime:01 stunt:01 python:01 libc:01 ocaml:01 nov:01 nov:01 bytes:02 essentially:02 o'caml:02 o'caml:02 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Eric Dahlman wrote: > John J Lee wrote: > > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Brian Hurt wrote: > >>Currying, exceptions, etc. also have small size penalties. > > OK. I'm now enlightened on that point -- clearly, O'Caml's runtime is an > > absolute requirement for an O'Caml program (unlike C/C++). > > C and C++ are not special in this regard, they just happen to be shipped > with the operating system. On my box hello world links against libc.so > and ld.so which are 1,531,964 and 103,044 bytes respectively. [...] I don't understand what this has to do with what I said in the quote. Yes, C runtime is present on essentially all systems, but the point is that C and O'Caml are fundamentally different: with C, you can *ignore* that runtime, and write a program that simply doesn't use it at all. Not so with O'Caml (for perfectly good and sensible reasons). > One way to even things up is require the C version to link to all of its [...] Also, I'm simply looking for a way to distribute code, not trying to start a pissing contest between C and O'Caml :-) so I'm not interested in "evening things up". > Really what you need to do is lobby Microsoft and Apple to include ocaml > as part of the base system install and then things might even out ;-) Well, I guess they already have, in the sense that O'Caml has a .NET implementation -- right? Always assuming that implementation is more than the publicity stunt that the Python one was, of course... 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