Hi, I am not sure that the binary size actually much difference for performance really. We like to think "smaller" and "lightweight" are more optimal. I think perhaps the gentoo users should take some blame for this:) I should say I know very little about the subject, but you might poke around the ideas like:
"How does this process malloc or manage memory"? (re: size, memory) "What libraries on the system are linked at runtime?" (re: size) "What does fast even mean in my context, is it responsiveness? Are there scheduling adjustment knobs I could turn in my kernel to make it feel faster?" If you are concerned about the disk size you could try something like this in your .xinitrc *saw this one on an irc channel the other day, haven't tried yet* exec /usr/bin/sbcl --eval '(ql:quickload "stumpwm")' --eval '(stumpwm:stumpwm)' Voila, stumpwm is compiled when you start X. stumpwm is pretty awesome, thanks everyone! Adrian Owen On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 1:04 AM, z_axis <z_a...@163.com> wrote: > $uname -a > FreeBSD mybsd.zsoft.com 9.0-RELEASE-p3 ... > > $pkg_info -Qx clisp > clisp-threaded-2.49_4 > > The stumpwm built using clisp is smallest and works fast and steady. > > -rwxr-xr-x 1 *** *** 40751128 2月 11 11:54 ~/bin/stumpwm*-sbcl > -rwxr-xr-x 1 *** *** 28917776 9 29 19:42 ~/bin/stumpwm-ccl* > -rwxr-xr-x 1 *** *** 8069936 10 16 13:18 ~/bin/stumpwm-clisp* > > > Regards! > > > _______________________________________________ > Stumpwm-devel mailing list > Stumpwm-devel@nongnu.org > https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel _______________________________________________ Stumpwm-devel mailing list Stumpwm-devel@nongnu.org https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel
