On Wed, Jan 31, 2001 at 09:49:59AM -0500, Andy Dougherty wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jan 2001, Bart Lateur wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 30 Jan 2001 21:39:25 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > >Why the urge to move it out of the core? Should perl6 be like Python,
> > >where you first need to do a gazillion imports before you can do anything
> > >useful? Say goodbye to quick one-liners then.
> >
> > It doesn't have to be like that. Functions that are not in the core can
> > still be automatically loaded, but only if your code actually uses them.
> > That could make the perl kernel a lot smaller than it is now, and
> > hopefully, make it load faster.
>
> This is a persistent myth. Moving such functions out of the core may
> indeed make the perl kernel cleaner, but I seriously doubt it will make
> it "a lot smaller" or have any significant impact on load time. You
> can try it and see with perl5, or search the perl5-porters archives for
> my previous reports on the subject.
On recent develperls one can say
make -f Makefile.micro
and take a look at the size of the resulting 'microperl' executable
and compare that with the full perl. I'll spoil the surprise: there
isn't much difference. It's the language itself that's big.
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
