On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 09:04:31AM -0500, Eric Cooper wrote: > On Thu, Jan 31, 2008 at 09:37:17AM +0100, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote: > > In an ideal scenario, OCaml would work precisely as it does now for the > > programmer, but store in the finally linked executables and libraries > > only references to objects that will then be loaded dynamically at > > runtime. If that were true, than your analogy with C would stand. > > Unless Xavier has changed his mind, this seems unlikely: > > http://caml.inria.fr/pub/ml-archives/caml-list/2004/05/775714fbf05c17e0cbf5c365d6671704.en.html
I kind of disagree with Xavier on his point 1 : As for feature 1- (smaller executables), I'm not convinced this is a major issue. I'm old enough to remember the introduction of shared libraries in the Unix world (in SunOS 4). At that time, the saving in disk space was significant: disks were small (a complete SunOS 4 install could fit in as little as 100 Mb) and the size of executables wasn't negligible compared to the size of data files. Times have changed, however: disk space has increased much faster than executable sizes, and the disks on a modern machine are mostly filled with data (think MP3 and movies :-), making executable sizes a non-issue. Well, there are various point he is overlooking : 1) This is true for disk space, but what are the impact on memory space ? 2) This is indeed the case for high level desktops or servers, but what about smaller systems, or embedded system, where both memory and disk is sparse. 3) This is also true for disks, but what about diskless setups, and what about setups like the eee pc, or the OLPC, whose system reside on flash disk ? 4) This is true for relatively small number of ocaml apps, and in particular single run ones. What happens if the number of ocaml apps augment, and in particular continuously running apps ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
