3 ms·

> Common Lisp - 25MB Double-You Tee Eff. What, does Common Lisp not have an incremental linker or something? Even Delphi executables are never that big. >Lis

> Common Lisp - 25MB Double-You Tee Eff. What, does Common Lisp not have an incremental linker or something? Even Delphi executables are never that big. >Lisp has the largest executable file (because to create an executable, you have to dump a "core image") at 25MB Can someone explain what this means? I'm clueless.

mqt 18y ago
lispm, from reddit: There are different strategies to create CL applications. - save an executable image. This will mostly dump the Lisp system and when you start it up, you have mostly everything back. The size of the dumped image depends on the size of your Lisp system. SBCL is already large and does not have any special features to make it smaller. CLISP for example writes much smaller images than SBCL. Clozure CL is also smaller. Here also is important with how much debug information the original Lisp image was created. The saved image typically will include all that. Corman CL on Windows compresses the Lisp data to save space. - deliver an application. That's for example what LispWorks and Allegro CL can do. They allow functionality and information (debug info, documentation strings, arglists, source locations, symbols, caches, ...) to be removed (for example by treeshaking, or by removing whole functionality groups). The size of the generated application will depend on what you leave out and which delivery level you are choosing. Stuff that might not be needed: compiler, debugger, disassembler, editor, inspector, REPL, ... - deliver a static application. I don't know which currently maintained CL implementation does that. There were several Common Lisp implementations that generate 'small' and static C code from Lisp. CLICC, Ibuki's CONS, WCL, Lisp-to-C, ThinLisp were in that league. They were used for application delivery, where the application might be really small and does not have any large runtime or development environment. There are also some other options. Probably ABCL could generate a JAR file that could be started with an installed JVM. Often Lisp compilers can compile code to native code compiled files (fasls) and even can append several fasls into one. Then one does need only to ship the fasl file, given that the user has the a Lisp installed that can load the fasl. http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/7swzs/hello_world_executable_sizes_in_17_languages/c07bd5z http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/7swzs/hello_wor...
jwr 18y ago
This means the original author is clueless. Executable for my small CL program is 44K for the FASL file and a one-liner shell script to run it. This is very similar to the java numbers. The original author chose to dump the entire development environment including the compiler, into one single executable -- this is sometimes interesting, but I don't see why he did that. He doesn't seem to do it for Java or Python.

mqt 18y ago

lispm, from reddit: There are different strategies to create CL applications. - save an executable image. This will mostly dump the Lisp system and when you start it up, you have mostly everything back. The size of the dumped image depends on the size of your Lisp system. SBCL is already large and does not have any special features to make it smaller. CLISP for example writes much smaller images than SBCL. Clozure CL is also smaller. Here also is important with how much debug information the original Lisp image was created. The saved image typically will include all that. Corman CL on Windows compresses the Lisp data to save space. - deliver an application. That's for example what LispWorks and Allegro CL can do. They allow functionality and information (debug info, documentation strings, arglists, source locations, symbols, caches, ...) to be removed (for example by treeshaking, or by removing whole functionality groups). The size of the generated application will depend on what you leave out and which delivery level you are choosing. Stuff that might not be needed: compiler, debugger, disassembler, editor, inspector, REPL, ... - deliver a static application. I don't know which currently maintained CL implementation does that. There were several Common Lisp implementations that generate 'small' and static C code from Lisp. CLICC, Ibuki's CONS, WCL, Lisp-to-C, ThinLisp were in that league. They were used for application delivery, where the application might be really small and does not have any large runtime or development environment. There are also some other options. Probably ABCL could generate a JAR file that could be started with an installed JVM. Often Lisp compilers can compile code to native code compiled files (fasls) and even can append several fasls into one. Then one does need only to ship the fasl file, given that the user has the a Lisp installed that can load the fasl. http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/7swzs/hello_world_executable_sizes_in_17_languages/c07bd5z http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/7swzs/hello_wor...

jwr 18y ago

This means the original author is clueless. Executable for my small CL program is 44K for the FASL file and a one-liner shell script to run it. This is very similar to the java numbers. The original author chose to dump the entire development environment including the compiler, into one single executable -- this is sometimes interesting, but I don't see why he did that. He doesn't seem to do it for Java or Python.