On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 01:06:08PM -0600, Brian Hurt wrote:
> 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. There was previous discussion on this
> > list about the merits and problems with linking the runtime
> > dynamically.
> 
> This isn't as bad as it sounds.  A simplistic "hello world!" application
> in Ocaml weighs in at 112K, versus 11K for the equivelent (dynamically
> linked) C program- almost entirely either statically linked standard

Mmm (on i386 and with 3.07+2) :

 $ cat hello.ml
 Printf.printf "Hello World!\n"
 $ ocamlc hello.ml -o hello.byte
 $ ls -l hello.byte
 36025 hello.byte
 $ ocamlc hello.ml -custom -o hello.custom
 $ ls -l hello.custom
 181718 hello.custom
 $ ocamlopt hello.ml -o hello.native
 $ ls -l hello.native
 149877 hello.native

That said :

 $ cat hello
 #!/usr/bin/ocamlrun /usr/bin/ocaml
 Printf.printf "Hello World!\n";;
 $ ls -l hello
 68 hello

Friendly,

Sven Luther

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