3 ms·

> You need to consider that Common Lisp includes a runtime, and this is a essential part of the goods of Common Lisp. Whenever you create a Common Lisp program,

> You need to consider that Common Lisp includes a runtime, and this is a essential part of the goods of Common Lisp. Whenever you create a Common Lisp program, you also "embed" the runtime, and the runtime allows you to do wonderful stuff within the running code, like for example, compile code on the fly, replace function with new version (while the program is running), replace class instances with new versions of the class (while the program is running), all sorts of enforcements of the required data type for actual data* (while the program is running), Lots of other people do this without massive executables to distribute, though. CLs are inconsistent on how they can distribute base images and executables. For example, Java's compiler is a code segment you an link in if you want to carry it with you.

flavio81 9y ago
> though. CLs are inconsistent on how they can distribute base images and executables There is only one Common Lisp, the 1994 ANSI Standard. There are many implementations and they give you diverse options of delivering. For example if you want good options to package an executable, I think LispWorks has lots of options for specifically this need.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  You know exactly what I meant, flavio81. Obviously. > For example if you want good options to package an executable, I think LispWorks has lots of features. It had 2 alternatives. I know, because I shipped some stuff to prod for Powerset on LW back in like 2009? We ultimately stopped using it precisely because we shipped less bytes more quickly with Java and Ruby. > As for Java, to execute a Java class you need a JRE (java runtime environment), which is not small at all, so I am not sure if it gives you a big advantage. I'm surprised to hear you say this, but in the interests of completeness I'll give you a handy way to compute the difference in bytes saved. (defun bytes-saved (num-deploys stdenv-size) (* (-1 num-deploys) stdenv-size)) A similar trivial function could help you see the amount of time saved by not compiling on site, should you respond to just ship and produce images onsite. This requirement is even more important in the world of diverse deployment techniques that expect modularized executables as a space and performance optimization. Docker, Nim, deployments around FreeBSD jails, and even package managers have dramatically improved performance if you can offer that kind of segmentation.
junke 9y ago
You did install a JVM to run Java, didn't you? If you want to develop in Java, you need a JDK. According to this page, it amounts to 132MB: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/windows-diskspace-140460.html http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/windows-disksp...
- KirinDave 9y ago
  Please see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15082806 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15082806 ONE installation is inevitable. It's that very few CL-offering environments give you anything better than an image.

flavio81 9y ago

> though. CLs are inconsistent on how they can distribute base images and executables There is only one Common Lisp, the 1994 ANSI Standard. There are many implementations and they give you diverse options of delivering. For example if you want good options to package an executable, I think LispWorks has lots of options for specifically this need.

KirinDave 9y ago
You know exactly what I meant, flavio81. Obviously. > For example if you want good options to package an executable, I think LispWorks has lots of features. It had 2 alternatives. I know, because I shipped some stuff to prod for Powerset on LW back in like 2009? We ultimately stopped using it precisely because we shipped less bytes more quickly with Java and Ruby. > As for Java, to execute a Java class you need a JRE (java runtime environment), which is not small at all, so I am not sure if it gives you a big advantage. I'm surprised to hear you say this, but in the interests of completeness I'll give you a handy way to compute the difference in bytes saved. (defun bytes-saved (num-deploys stdenv-size) (* (-1 num-deploys) stdenv-size)) A similar trivial function could help you see the amount of time saved by not compiling on site, should you respond to just ship and produce images onsite. This requirement is even more important in the world of diverse deployment techniques that expect modularized executables as a space and performance optimization. Docker, Nim, deployments around FreeBSD jails, and even package managers have dramatically improved performance if you can offer that kind of segmentation.

junke 9y ago

You did install a JVM to run Java, didn't you? If you want to develop in Java, you need a JDK. According to this page, it amounts to 132MB: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/windows-diskspace-140460.html http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/windows-disksp...

KirinDave 9y ago
Please see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15082806 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15082806 ONE installation is inevitable. It's that very few CL-offering environments give you anything better than an image.