Re: RAM usage of applications?
egarrulo wrote: > Hello everybody, > > I wonder if I could consider Chicken to write an application for a > device with 256 MB of RAM, where the whole RAM may not be available for > the application. > > Can anybody give me a *rough* idea of how much RAM a basic program > written in Chicken and transpiled to C could require at run-time? Some > megabytes, dozens of megabytes, etc. With all features enabled, if > feasible. Speed is not a concern. > > Thank you. What exactly do you mean by “all features enabled”? The RAM usage is mostly determined by the program you need to write and how you write it. I have many programs written in CHICKEN Scheme running on a 32bits ARM machine with only 512 MB of RAM, they all take between a few hundreds of KB and to a few tenths of MB.
Fwd: RAM usage of applications?
EDIT: I meant 128 MB of RAM, not 256. Sorry. Messaggio Inoltrato Oggetto:RAM usage of applications? Data: Fri, 29 Nov 2019 23:19:21 +0100 Mittente: egarrulo A: chicken-users@nongnu.org Hello everybody, I wonder if I could consider Chicken to write an application for a device with 256 MB of RAM, where the whole RAM may not be available for the application. Can anybody give me a *rough* idea of how much RAM a basic program written in Chicken and transpiled to C could require at run-time? Some megabytes, dozens of megabytes, etc. With all features enabled, if feasible. Speed is not a concern. Thank you.
RAM usage of applications?
Hello everybody, I wonder if I could consider Chicken to write an application for a device with 256 MB of RAM, where the whole RAM may not be available for the application. Can anybody give me a *rough* idea of how much RAM a basic program written in Chicken and transpiled to C could require at run-time? Some megabytes, dozens of megabytes, etc. With all features enabled, if feasible. Speed is not a concern. Thank you.
Re: It would be nice if glob "/*/*" worked
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 2:59 AM Tim via wrote: > Hi Matt, > > Matt Welland writes: > > Supporting glob patterns at any level would be handy. I started to > > implement something which I've included below but before I complete it: > > I like this idea too. Just one thing: would it be possible to use the > double-asterisk ** instead of a single * to represent the directory > matching portion? I.e. /subdir/**/*.txt would find any file with a > name ending in .txt in any directory below /subdir. This is a pretty > common syntax for recursive globbing I think; at least I've seen it in > zsh, python and a few other places. > I don't understand the use or benefit of using ** for directories. Bash, perl and python all expand "*/c*" as I would expect. Can you send a pointer to the usage you are referring to? > > Tim > -- -- Complexity is your enemy. Any fool can make something complicated. It is hard to keep things simple. - Richard Branson.
Re: It would be nice if glob "/*/*" worked
Hi Matt, Matt Welland writes: > Supporting glob patterns at any level would be handy. I started to > implement something which I've included below but before I complete it: I like this idea too. Just one thing: would it be possible to use the double-asterisk ** instead of a single * to represent the directory matching portion? I.e. /subdir/**/*.txt would find any file with a name ending in .txt in any directory below /subdir. This is a pretty common syntax for recursive globbing I think; at least I've seen it in zsh, python and a few other places. Tim signature.asc Description: PGP signature
