In article <··················@pdx800.intel.com>
····@pdx800.intel.com (Mike Haertel) writes:
> Yes, I am aware of such things as tree shakers and standalone
> application generators. Unfortunately, they don't shake enough out.
They don't need to. Just use a shared library. One copy for every
Lisp program. IMHO it's either the language purists that prevent
this from happening, or maybe some people don't have an OS with a
shared library feature. I don't know.
X-Windows also "demands" shared libs, so this isn't just a Lisp
thing. How many X apps do you have running at once? Do they use
dynamic or static linking to the toolkit?
When I want tight coding, I use Forth...
-- Cyber Surfing on CIX --
In article <···········@cix.compulink.co.uk>, ············@cix.compulink.co.uk (Cyber Surfer) writes:
|>
|> In article <··················@pdx800.intel.com>
|> ····@pdx800.intel.com (Mike Haertel) writes:
|>
|> > Yes, I am aware of such things as tree shakers and standalone
|> > application generators. Unfortunately, they don't shake enough out.
|>
|> They don't need to. Just use a shared library. One copy for every
|> Lisp program. IMHO it's either the language purists that prevent
|> this from happening, or maybe some people don't have an OS with a
|> shared library feature. I don't know.
On that note, there is a shared library implementation of CommonLisp,
called WCL (see archie). It was designed specifically with the idea
in mind of getting executables to be small.
Thomas.
In article <············@life.ai.mit.edu>, ···@arolla.idiap.ch (Thomas M.
Breuel) wrote:
>
> In article <···········@cix.compulink.co.uk>, ············@cix.compulink.co.uk (Cyber Surfer) writes:
> |>
> |> In article <··················@pdx800.intel.com>
> |> ····@pdx800.intel.com (Mike Haertel) writes:
> |>
> |> > Yes, I am aware of such things as tree shakers and standalone
> |> > application generators. Unfortunately, they don't shake enough out.
> |>
> |> They don't need to. Just use a shared library. One copy for every
> |> Lisp program. IMHO it's either the language purists that prevent
> |> this from happening, or maybe some people don't have an OS with a
> |> shared library feature. I don't know.
>
> On that note, there is a shared library implementation of CommonLisp,
> called WCL (see archie). It was designed specifically with the idea
> in mind of getting executables to be small.
>
> Thomas.
Here's a few more details about WCL:
WCL OVERVIEW
------------
Common Lisp implementations for Unix have traditionally provided a
rich development environment at the expense of an inefficient delivery
environment. The goal of WCL is to allow hundreds of Lisp
applications to be realistically available at once, while allowing
several of them to run concurrently. WCL accomplishes this by
providing Common Lisp as a Unix shared library that can be linked with
Lisp and C code to produce efficient applications. For example, the
executable for a Lisp version of the canonical ``Hello World!''
program requires only 40k bytes under SunOS 4.1 for SPARC. WCL also
supports a full development environment, including dynamic file
loading and debugging. A modified version of GDB the GNU Debugger, is
used to debug WCL programs, providing support for mixed language
debugging.