5 ms·
Well, if you want to just-in-time compile, then it seems like a compiler is one way to go. They are now in the size realm of Lisp and Smalltalk. Forth may lea
by dapperdrake 2y ago
Well, if you want to just-in-time compile, then it seems like a compiler is one way to go.
They are now in the size realm of Lisp and Smalltalk. Forth may lean towards the lighter side.
- CyberDildonics 2y agoLisp and Smalltalk are 266 MB? tcc is 100KB https://www.bellard.org/tcc/ https://www.bellard.org/tcc/
- lifthrasiir 2y agoTCC doesn't do much optimization in turn, while commercial implementations of Lisp and Smalltalk are surely much larger than that.
- CyberDildonics 2y agoI'm not sure what your point is. The person I replied to was justifying a 266MB binary by saying a compiler was included. Are you saying optimization would make tcc 2,660 times as big?
- lifthrasiir 2y agoThe point is that LLVM does much, much more than TCC and, while it is definitely possible that LLVM could have done that in a smaller binary, TCC is probably not a good thing to compare with because it only does a bare minimum. I should also note that LLVM is a cross-compiler by default...
- CyberDildonics 2y agoThe person I replied to just said it is 266MB because it includes a compiler, and that obviously isn't true. https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasm-micro-runtime https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasm-micro-runtime This says 4000 lines https://github.com/explodingcamera/tinywasm https://github.com/explodingcamera/tinywasm What are we talking about here? There is obviously no reason a wasm jit has to be 266 MB
- folmar 2y agoSqueak Smalltalk is 53 MB on Windows (excluding sources). 48 MB of that is the image with UI framework and so on, but it's not immediately easy to say which library/ui parts are core.