Am Fri, 31 May 2013 17:58:11 +0200 schrieb "Craig Dillabaugh" <[email protected]>:
> 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
