Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!spool2.mu.edu!uunet!mcsun!i2unix!inria!ilog!barbes!davis
From: davis@barbes.ilog.fr (Harley Davis)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: mistaken idea of Lisp?
Message-ID:
Date: 22 Jan 91 12:39:51 GMT
References: <127724@linus.mitre.org> <5569@turquoise.UUCP> <3954@skye.ed.ac.uk>
<106389@cc.utah.edu>
Sender: davis@ilog.fr
Organization: ILOG S.A., Gentilly, France
Lines: 35
In-reply-to: RCAPENER@cc.utah.edu's message of 21 Jan 91 02:11:12 GMT
In article <106389@cc.utah.edu> RCAPENER@cc.utah.edu writes:
> If we start with C and
> then add in various libraries, it starts to look fairly large too.
In C, you do not add in the libraries. You add in ONLY those
functions from that library that you requested. For example,
if you have the log() function in your code, the -lm directive
to the link loader extracts only the log() function, not every
function in the library! In other words, you pay for only what
you need, no more. I would say that most C executable programs
are 1/2 the size of a LISP program (including the overhead of the
LISP system) for any moderately large system.
I think it was clear that Jeff was talking about the size of the
language itself, as represented, for example, in the weight of the
ANSI C specification, not the size of applications developed in the
language. There is no special reason why some Lisp dialect using
modules could not use the same kind of linkers which C uses to limit
final application size.
Hope this clears up ANY confusion about the language C. Personally,
I like both LISP and C, so please don't flame me.
I like both Bordeaux and beer. To each his own.
-- Harley
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harley Davis internet: davis@ilog.fr
ILOG S.A. uucp: ..!mcvax!inria!ilog!davis
2 Avenue Gallie'ni, BP 85 tel: (33 1) 46 63 66 66
94253 Gentilly Cedex
France