Browse thread
[Caml-list] Executable size?
[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: | 2003-11-15 (14:37) |
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 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