]> On Nov 12, 2003, at 8:14, 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)? Well, the bin is bigger than a minimal C app with the same functionality. There is no runtime library required (I build and distribute apps). I somehow don't have ghc on my machines here to do a comparison. > Are there any easily-identifiable, non-obvious, factors that affect > executable size (I'm talking about end-use factors, rather those > resulting > from the design decisions taken by the language designers and > implementors)? (don't know) > I currently use Python by preference, but I'm interested in a language > (other than C/C++!) that doesn't depend on a big runtime library and > generates "reasonably" small executables -- modems are here to stay > for a > while yet. The stuff I build on my Mac ends up being about 300k so far. That seems reasonably small to me. I'm not sure what a modem has to do with your distribution, but there are options. You could distribute the source to your app (which will be way smaller than the equivalent C or C++ application) and compile elsewhere, or you can use the transfer time to bask in your productivity and performance gains. :) Python is a bad reference for two reasons: 1) You don't typically distribute compiled python apps (and when you do, it's always bytecode). 2) Ocaml's runtime is *amazingly* fast. I've prototyped a few apps in python before rewriting in ocaml for performance. The speed gains alone are beginning to push python away from being my primary utility app language. I like a lot about the language as well. -- Dustin Sallings ------------------- 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