3 ms·
> 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 im
by 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 agoYou 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.