This is not an answer. It is only comments, and more information on the
same subject. It also has a related question at the end.
I have "print hello" in a file called hello.pl, as you can see below
> type hello.pl
print "hello"
You can see the size of the exe that was created on Windows XP below
02/12/2004 03:22 PM 1,978,898 a.exe
It works, as shown:
> a.exe
hello
I can ask, why is my exe bigger than yours, when you have more lines of
code? Well, I have installed a lot of non-core modules on my machine. I
also have bits and pieces -- junk -- scattered amongst my perl bin
directories. Bad, bad, I know, but I do. I am guessing *note: only
guessing* that the increased size is due to pp packing some extras along
with the core modules.
Now let me compare the above with a real application with many thousands of
lines of code. The application includes Tk menues and such, too. It's exe
size is
02/11/2004 03:29 PM 2,820,064 test_1.exe
If I take into account that the big program is bundling Tk as well as the
core modules, plus some other modules that hello.pl does not need, then I
have to say that it looks like there is not a whole lot of difference what
gets bundled. The number of lines of code in your program is not
necessarily relevent. At least not until it begins to be comparable to the
base of what gets packed for all programs. This is not a worry for me.
Even my smallest machine has hundreds of megabytes of storage capability. I
am just curious about it.
****Is my surmising true?****
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mark A. Chalkley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 1:40 AM
Subject: Re: First-time user questions...
> So, to recap:
>
> I have a script of about 120 lines, which explicitly uses only two
modules:
> CipherSaber and PPMd.
>
> pp -d and Perl2Exe -small create exes of 733kb and 123kb, respectively.
>
> pp and Perl2Exe create exes of 1528kb and 471kb, respectively.
>
> Obviously, these aren't typical results, according to what I've read in
the
> mailing list archives. Does anyone have any idea why?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Mark
>
