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: 2003-11-12 (18:21)
From: John J Lee <jjl@p...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Executable size?
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.

How big is the runtime?  Does the compiler only link in the parts of the
runtime that you use, or do you just non-negotiably get the whole thing
every time you link?

Probably this is a naive question, but: Is it impractical to have a
functional language that uses the C runtime?

Does anyone have recommendations for languages (not necessarily
functional) with a compiler that generates small executables (including
runtime code) for multiple platforms (at least Unix and Windows), with a
decent FFI (foreign function interface), and preferably MS COM support?

Am I really stuck with C++??


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