May 31, 2013 Re: hello world in D | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Craig Dillabaugh | On Friday, 31 May 2013 at 15:58:12 UTC, Craig Dillabaugh wrote:
> Do you really think that is such a big issue? I can't remember
> the last time I looked at the size of an executable I generated.
There's three cases where I sometimes care:
1) if I build the program on my computer, then push it to a test/live server over a slow internet link. It is edit/run/debug but with a sloooooow wait in the middle for the file to transfer.
2) I make little programs and send people Windows binaries over my (kinda slow) home internet sometimes. So upload speed again, especially if they play with it, send me comments, and I want to send them a new version to try.
3) wanting minimism for its own sake :)
Using dlls can sometimes help, but the initial download is still slow and it is a pain to have users manage that stuff, I prefer to say "here's a .zip, just unzip it and run the program" so smaller total package is a nice benefit.
That said though 95% of the time, a few megabytes isn't a big deal.
|
May 31, 2013 Re: hello world in D | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Craig Dillabaugh | On Fri, 31 May 2013 16:58:11 +0100, Craig Dillabaugh <cdillaba@cg.scs.carleton.ca> wrote: >> >> Under 40 kilobytes! If you do the bare minimum you can get down to about 1 KB, but at that point, you're actually writing in mostly (inline) assembly rather than D. The code in the link though supports a majority (though certainly not all) of D's features. >> >>> Agreed 100%. But newcomers don't often get that far down the chain of thought, they just see a huge exe and wonder WTF! :) >> >> Indeed. > > Do you really think that is such a big issue? Not really an issue, no. But newcomers keep creating threads like this one time and again and who knows how many have been turned away without finding out the whys and wherefores. R -- Using Opera's revolutionary email client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ |
May 31, 2013 Re: hello world in D | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to khurshid | On Friday, 31 May 2013 at 14:56:17 UTC, khurshid wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> Even, when I type dmd -v :
> DMD32 D Compiler v2.063
> Copyright (c) 1999-2012 by Digital Mars written by Walter Bright
> Documentation: http://dlang.org/
> -----------------------------------------
> Why copyright 2012 not a 2013?
Fixed in git.
|
May 31, 2013 Re: hello world in D | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Brad Anderson | On 05/31/2013 06:34 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
> On Friday, 31 May 2013 at 14:56:17 UTC, khurshid wrote:
>> Why copyright 2012 not a 2013?
>
> Fixed in git.
Is this not something where some clever CTFE could be used to swipe the date of build and insert the correct year? :-P
|
May 31, 2013 Re: hello world in D | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Rob T | On Friday, May 31, 2013 18:05:16 Rob T wrote:
> I've seen this happen with 2.062, if you take out -noboundscheck it may reduce the size significantly and compile a lot faster. Makes no sense.
My first guess would be that more ends up being inlined with -noboundscheck due to the differences in the code that's being generated, but I really don't knw.
- Jonathan M Davis
|
May 31, 2013 Re: hello world in D | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Joseph Rushton Wakeling | On 5/31/13 12:48 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
> On 05/31/2013 06:34 PM, Brad Anderson wrote:
>> On Friday, 31 May 2013 at 14:56:17 UTC, khurshid wrote:
>>> Why copyright 2012 not a 2013?
>>
>> Fixed in git.
>
> Is this not something where some clever CTFE could be used to swipe the date of
> build and insert the correct year? :-P
>
Yah, rdmd does that.
Andrei
|
May 31, 2013 Re: hello world in D | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Regan Heath | On Friday, 31 May 2013 at 16:31:42 UTC, Regan Heath wrote:
> On Fri, 31 May 2013 16:58:11 +0100, Craig Dillabaugh <cdillaba@cg.scs.carleton.ca> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Under 40 kilobytes! If you do the bare minimum you can get down to about 1 KB, but at that point, you're actually writing in mostly (inline) assembly rather than D. The code in the link though supports a majority (though certainly not all) of D's features.
>>>
>>>> Agreed 100%. But newcomers don't often get that far down the chain of thought, they just see a huge exe and wonder WTF! :)
>>>
>>> Indeed.
>>
>> Do you really think that is such a big issue?
>
> Not really an issue, no. But newcomers keep creating threads like this one time and again and who knows how many have been turned away without finding out the whys and wherefores.
>
> R
A hello wold in java, statically compiled, was 52Mb last time I
tried.
|
May 31, 2013 Re: hello world in D | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Jonathan M Davis | On Friday, 31 May 2013 at 16:52:53 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Friday, May 31, 2013 18:05:16 Rob T wrote:
>> I've seen this happen with 2.062, if you take out -noboundscheck
>> it may reduce the size significantly and compile a lot faster.
>> Makes no sense.
>
> My first guess would be that more ends up being inlined with -noboundscheck due
> to the differences in the code that's being generated, but I really don't knw.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis
I discovered this last night while playing around with the raytrace performance issue a few threads back. I noticed that Derelict was being built without -noboundscheck so I put the flag in to see what if anything would happen.
The difference is from a few kilobytes per lib to a few megabytes per lib, so it's a drastic increase and it takes a lot more time to build. This may be something that should be investigated further.
--rt
|
May 31, 2013 Re: hello world in D | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Craig Dillabaugh | Am Fri, 31 May 2013 17:58:11 +0200 schrieb "Craig Dillabaugh" <cdillaba@cg.scs.carleton.ca>: > Do you really think that is such a big issue? I can't remember the last time I looked at the size of an executable I generated. When I am trying to learn a new language it is really not something I think of as a major issue. > > However, I do scientific computing, and I am not distributing most of the software I am developing. If it runs fast and doesn't fill up my terabyte hard drive - I will never notice. So I guess that makes me a little different than many posters on this mailing list. > > I would imagine there is fair segment on the programming > population who like me don't care too much about executable size. > I suppose if you are developing software for embedded systems or > similar, then you probably watch for these things more. > > Craig Fair enough. I've seen Haskell executables for small programs of about 10 MB. But don't forget that D is used in many areas and if for a moment you imagine Unix being written in D with static linking and your standard set of tools like ls, grep, cat, ... would all be 600-1000 KiB, it would certainly increase boot times, disk cache thrashing and program loading times in general despite being just too much for some minimal devices. D can do better. There are low hanging fruit like: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=7319 -- Marco |
May 31, 2013 Re: hello world in D | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
| ||||
Posted in reply to Andrei Alexandrescu | Am Fri, 31 May 2013 13:14:48 -0400 schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail@erdani.org>: > On 5/31/13 12:48 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote: > > On 05/31/2013 06:34 PM, Brad Anderson wrote: > >> On Friday, 31 May 2013 at 14:56:17 UTC, khurshid wrote: > >>> Why copyright 2012 not a 2013? > >> > >> Fixed in git. > > > > Is this not something where some clever CTFE could be used to swipe the date of build and insert the correct year? :-P > > > > Yah, rdmd does that. > > Andrei A copyright year is not the date of compilation, but the date of last edit. Just saying. :) -- Marco |
Copyright © 1999-2021 by the D Language Foundation