]> 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