I didn't check. Is this from the Wikipedia page then wrong (to you not get on package with the runtime and LLVM included?):
In version 0.4,[24] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_(programming_language)#cite_note-24> a standalone "executable <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executable> that doesn't require any julia source code" can be built with *build_executable.jl*[25] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_(programming_language)#cite_note-25> while by default the Julia runtime needs to be pre-installed. On Wednesday, September 2, 2015 at 2:36:42 PM UTC, Isaiah wrote: > > Search for "build_executable.jl" for the current recommendation (it > requires the Julia runtime and LLVM, so not stand-alone). It is unlikely > that the runtime or LLVM requirements will go away in the near term. > > On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 10:12 AM, Christof Stocker <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> On 2015-09-02 13:51, Leff Ivanov wrote: >> >>> Is it possible or is it even planned to be able to create native >>> standalone executables from Julia scripts? By standalone I mean that >>> executable file can be used fully by the end user without the need to >>> install Julia. By native I mean that Julia code is compiled ahead of time >>> to fast native code. >>> >> >> +1 for standalone executables. >> >> I really hope it is still being discussed by the developers. I did see a >> mailing-list post a while back about that topic, so it definitively has >> come up before. >> >> I do think Julia has the unique potential of being a prototype- as well >> as production language (in the ML field). It would most certainly reduce my >> need for Scala in industry projects. >> >> Then again, there are probably more pressing and interesting issues. I >> have faith in the developers decisions. >> >> (btw Go is a decent example of how to make cross-compiling fun) >> > >
