On Tue, 04 Nov 2014 10:32:01 -0500 Vincent St-Amour <stamo...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
> FWIW, the same program, using `racket/base` yields an executable > that's 800k. > > My hypothesis is that the `typed/racket/base` version of the > executable brings in the entire Typed Racket implementation and its > dependencies. It probably would be sufficient to only bring in the > run-time portions of TR, which are smaller. > > Would that behavior make sense for `raco exe`? > Yes, of course. This makes sense. However, it is not really nice to have some 12MB for such an executable where the non typed one is around 800k. I think this should be improved upon. -- Manfred > Vincent > > > > At Tue, 4 Nov 2014 06:23:33 +0100, > Manfred Lotz wrote: > > > > Hi there, > > I have this minimal example: > > > > #lang typed/racket/base > > > > (: hello : String -> Void) > > (define (hello f) > > (displayln f)) > > > > (hello "world") > > > > > > raco exe mytest.rkt > > > > gives an executable with size 12887089. > > > > > > This doesn't seem to be ok. > > > > > > -- > > Manfred > > > > > > ____________________ > > Racket Users list: > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
