Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
[Caml-list] Executable size?
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Richard Jones <rich@a...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Executable size?
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. There was previous discussion on this
list about the merits and problems with linking the runtime
dynamically.

Of course you can always use OCaml as a scripting language (ie.  tiny
"executables" preceeded by #!/usr/bin/ocaml), or distribute the
bytecode, which tends to be small, so you have more choices than the
languages you've listed above.

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones. http://www.annexia.org/ http://freshmeat.net/users/rwmj
Merjis Ltd. http://www.merjis.com/ - improving website return on investment
"My karma ran over your dogma"

-------------------
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