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 (23:59)
From: John J Lee <jjl@p...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Executable size?
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Eric Dahlman wrote:

> John J Lee wrote:
> > On Wed, 12 Nov 2003, Brian Hurt wrote:
> >>Currying, exceptions, etc. also have small size penalties.
> > OK.  I'm now enlightened on that point -- clearly, O'Caml's runtime is an
> > absolute requirement for an O'Caml program (unlike C/C++).
> C and C++ are not special in this regard, they just happen to be shipped
> with the operating system.  On my box hello world links against
> and which are 1,531,964 and 103,044 bytes respectively.

I don't understand what this has to do with what I said in the quote.
Yes, C runtime is present on essentially all systems, but the point is
that C and O'Caml are fundamentally different: with C, you can *ignore*
that runtime, and write a program that simply doesn't use it at all.  Not
so with O'Caml (for perfectly good and sensible reasons).

> One way to even things up is require the C version to link to all of its

Also, I'm simply looking for a way to distribute code, not trying to start
a pissing contest between C and O'Caml :-) so I'm not interested in
"evening things up".

> Really what you need to do is lobby Microsoft and Apple to include ocaml
> as part of the base system install and then things might even out ;-)

Well, I guess they already have, in the sense that O'Caml has a .NET
implementation -- right?  Always assuming that implementation is more than
the publicity stunt that the Python one was, of course...


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