From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by pauillac.inria.fr (8.7.6/8.7.3) id XAA14938; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:53:10 +0100 (MET) X-Authentication-Warning: pauillac.inria.fr: majordomo set sender to owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr using -f 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 XAA14801 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:53:09 +0100 (MET) Received: from aomori.annexia.org (annexia.force9.co.uk [212.56.101.183]) by concorde.inria.fr (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id hACMr8104109 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:53:08 +0100 (MET) Received: from rich by aomori.annexia.org with local (Exim 3.36 #1 (Debian)) id 1AK3rI-00019e-00 for ; Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:53:08 +0000 Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:53:08 +0000 Cc: caml-list@inria.fr Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Executable size? Message-ID: <20031112225308.GA4399@redhat.com> References: <20031112173335.GA32347@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i From: Richard Jones X-Loop: caml-list@inria.fr X-Spam: no; 0.00; caml-list:01 runtime:01 runtime:01 natively:01 installer:01 installer:01 dynamically:01 ffi:01 ocam'ole:01 freshmeat:01 libc:01 ltd:98 compiler:01 compiler:01 ocaml:01 Sender: owner-caml-list@pauillac.inria.fr Precedence: bulk On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 06:21:11PM +0000, John J Lee wrote: > 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? It's really not so huge. You'll have to tell us a bit more about your situation. As a general guide, I was recently involved in writing a large simulation program. We distributed two natively compiled OCaml programs in a Windows installer, plus many auxiliary files, and the size of the installer came to between 6 and 8 MB. This was not such an issue for our users. [The installer was written using NSIS and used bzip2 compression]. > Probably this is a naive question, but: Is it impractical to have a > functional language that uses the C runtime? OCaml links (dynamically) with the C runtime as well. ie. libc on Unix. > 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? Yes, OCaml! If you want COM support, look at OCam'OLE. > Am I really stuck with C++?? Well, one would hope not. Supply us with more details about exactly what the limitations are that you're facing, and we'll be able to provide some more meaningful information. Rich. -- Richard Jones. http://www.annexia.org/ http://freshmeat.net/users/rwmj Merjis Ltd. http://www.merjis.com/ - improving website return on investment "I wish more software used text based configuration files!" -- A Windows NT user, quoted on Slashdot. ------------------- 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