Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    

This site is updated infrequently. For up-to-date information, please visit the new OCaml website at

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: skaller <skaller@o...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Executable size?
On Fri, 2003-11-14 at 02:43, Eric Dahlman wrote:
> John J Lee wrote:

> My point was that if you are making these sorts of comparisons you 
> cannot just *ignore* the runtime in the C/C++ case and more importantly 
> that C and O'Caml are not fundamentally different in this regard.  By 
> definition it is impossible to write a program in C or C++ which does 
> not use the respective runtime, it cannot be ignored.

That is not true for C, unless you are pedantic and refer to ISO C,
and even then, ISO C has a concept of 'hosted' and 'non-hosted'
systems, with the requirements for non-hosted systems
being considerably less.

A very large number of people do in fact build C all the
time without any runtime library at all: embedded systems
typically don't use any runtime.

You can also do this for C++, even g++ can do it I think
by turning off support for features that require run
time support such as exception handling.

Ocaml on the other hand cannot function at all without the gc.

To unsubscribe, mail Archives:
Bug reports: FAQ:
Beginner's list: