From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from weis@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id PAA27900 for caml-red; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 15:55:44 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from concorde.inria.fr (concorde.inria.fr [192.93.2.39]) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) with ESMTP id NAA26607 for ; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 13:29:52 +0200 (MET DST) Received: from miss.wu-wien.ac.at (miss.wu-wien.ac.at [137.208.107.17]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.10.0/8.10.0) with ESMTP id e79BTpf10588; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 13:29:51 +0200 (MET DST) Received: (from mottl@localhost) by miss.wu-wien.ac.at (8.9.0/8.9.0) id NAA21616; Wed, 9 Aug 2000 13:29:41 +0200 (MET DST) Date: Wed, 9 Aug 2000 13:29:41 +0200 From: Markus Mottl To: ortmann@us.ibm.com Cc: Pierre Weis , Georges Mariano , caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: tiny toplevel Message-ID: <20000809132941.A16537@miss.wu-wien.ac.at> References: <85256935.0059D0CD.00@D51MTA04.pok.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i In-Reply-To: <85256935.0059D0CD.00@D51MTA04.pok.ibm.com>; from ortmann@us.ibm.com on Tue, Aug 08, 2000 at 11:21:09 -0500 Sender: weis@pauillac.inria.fr On Tue, 08 Aug 2000, ortmann@us.ibm.com wrote: > > USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND > > weis 7546 0.1 1.2 2840 1652 pts/5 T 14:16 0:00 ocamlrun /usr/bin > > weis 7656 1.6 0.5 1484 660 pts/5 T 14:17 0:00 camlrun /usr/loca > Any idea how big Java is? Interesting question - I tried it out on a Sun Ultra 5: PID USERNAME THR PRI NICE SIZE RES STATE TIME CPU COMMAND 11183 markusm 1 5 0 3000K 2448K run 0:10 33.63% ocaml 11184 markusm 1 15 0 4232K 2656K run 0:04 18.04% java 11402 markusm 1 5 0 1960K 1272K run 0:01 5.27% ocamlrun The OCaml-program: while true do () done The Java-program (an example of conciseness ;) class test { public static void main (String args[]) { while (true); } } One could argue now that the initial heap settings for Java are larger (I don't know), but even explicitely setting them to the lowest level does not allow it to "beat" OCaml: java -ms1000 test: 11270 markusm 1 5 0 3336K 2480K run 0:05 23.44% java No match for OCaml (even the toplevel interpreter is smaller), not even to mention caml-light, which is at least 2-3 times smaller... I don't know how Java scales up with more interesting programs, but I don't expect any surprises here... - so if somebody wants to go "embedded", don't do it with Java... ;) Best regards, Markus Mottl -- Markus Mottl, mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at, http://miss.wu-wien.ac.at/~mottl