On Monday, June 6, 2016 at 5:17:16 PM UTC, Stefan Karpinski wrote: > > Really useless – it doesn't know about integers or how add them, for > example. If you want to trim down the standard library, you can try editing > out parts of base/sysimg.jl and rebuilding, but that's kind of a tricky > process. >
Dmitry asked for "somehow", and while Karpinski is of course correct, I think Dmitry wanted to get rid of the files, not the "standard library" per se. I think the point of Intel's Julia2C (ParallelAccelerator.jl <http://julialang.org/blog/2016/03/parallelaccelerator> does similar things to C++, but not meant to translate all your code) was to generate C code so you do not have to distribute your source code. [Usually you would compile that C code and distribute the binary, not C source code. This would not be done to gain speed, unlike ParallelAccelerator.jl, that compiles to C++, but could do else later, it's just an implementation detail.] I also think the compilation to C applies to Julia's standard library, the part that is Julia source code (there might be other ways do do this already..). [Parts of Julia source code will be in C/C++ and will be in the binary libjulia.dll that I think you could never avoid. Some part of the code is a runtime, not a "standard library", while other parts of it are, such as That binary] See also the AOT Julia article for gory details and exceptions. Is Julia2C working? I've never tried it. I believe it wasn't fully functional/a demo, [and even got broken by later versions of Julia, maybe Julia2C has been kept in sync.] -- Palli. > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 12:43 PM, Avik Sengupta <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> Julia is pretty useless without its standard library. >> >> On Monday, 6 June 2016 14:42:02 UTC+1, Dmitry wrote: >>> >>> I tried to remove ".jl" library files from Julia installation directory, >>> but it did not help. Then I tried to remove "libjulia.dll" but it does not >>> want to run without this file. >>> >> >
