Compared to them, D programs are small. The big difference is
Java, .net, ruby, python, etc. are already popular enough to
have their libraries/support code pre-installed on the user's
computer. D programs, on the other hand, carry all their
support code with them in each executable (they're statically
linked) so they have better odds of just working without the
user
needing to install other stuff that they prolly don't already
have.
Ah, yes. I was wondering why large amount of code originating in
something called a "standard library" was apparently being shoved
into an executable. I guess at this point in the life of Dlang,
it is not yet realistic to expect users to have e.g.
"libdlang.so" in their "/usr/lib".
It would be nice to have an option to use a systemwide library
file and dynamically link it; that way, as a silly example, I
could have 10 different D-based "hello world"-sized programs`
executables and only one copy of the relevant library code [well,
at least of _most_ of it].
BTW: I see what you meant about statically linked:
> ls -lh /opt/Digital_Mars_D/lib
-r--r--r-- 1 Abe staff 34M Aug 16 09:08 libphobos2.a
… only an "ar" archive, no ".dylib" file [basically the Mac OS X
equivalent of an ".so" file]. :-(
Do you think DMD and Phobos2 could be massaged into giving us the
dynamically-linked option with a small-enough amount of time &
effort, at least for the first platform to get that option? [I`m
guessing that here, "first" effectively implies "easiest to
implement".]
Do you know if GDC and/or LDC do this in a way that makes for
small Hello Worlds? I haven`t yet successfully installed either
one of those, sorry, so I can`t test it myself yet.
Thanks again.
— Abe
