ghc image size
13 Dec 2001 20:40:05 -0800
Why is executable size a barrier? 1.64 megabytes (that's the size of
the executable I built with GHC most recently) of disk space costs less
than half a cent. The total cost of the storage will be higher
(backup, installing the drive, etc.) but I don't think it will be
Are there other reasons that size matters?
> I just recently starting to use the ghc compiler and am astonished by the
> size of the executables. Out of interest, why are they so large? Is there
> any work in progress to make the resulting executable/object somewhat more
> "normal" in size?
> I read in the Haskell mailing list archives discussions relating to reducing
> the barriers to broader acceptance of functional programming by the general
> programming community (in particular Haskell) - I would regard this as one
> of these barriers.