Compiler: Size of generated executable file

[Bane]

You can't beat DFL (D Forms Library) on that matter. No overhead. And it looks great.

retard Wrote:

> Sat, 09 Jan 2010 18:15:44 -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> 
> > "retard" <re at tard.com.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:hiavkv$1meu$1 at digitalmars.com...
> >> Sat, 09 Jan 2010 19:44:07 +0100, grauzone wrote:
> >>
> >>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> >>>> "Ph" <romanua at gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:hia7qc$b5k$1 at digitalmars.com...
> >>>>> Why a generated file is so huge?
> >>>>> "Empty" program such as:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> int main(char[][] args)
> >>>>> {
> >>>>>
> >>>>> return 0;
> >>>>> }
> >>>>>
> >>>>> compiled with dmd2 into file with size of  266268 bytes. Even after
> >>>>> UPX, it's size is 87552 bytes. Size of this code,compiled with
> >>>>> VS(yes,yes, C++), is 6 656 bytes. Compiler add's standard library 
> >>>>> to file, am i right? Is there some optimization which delete unused
> >>>>> code from file?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> That's not even a third of a megabyte, why does this keep getting
> >>>> brought up as an issue by so many people?
> >>>
> >>> Maybe most of them don't know that it's only constant overheads.
> >>
> >> Are you sure it's a constant overhead? I've written few thousands of
> >> lines in D and it always seems that if you port the same code to C++,
> >> Java or C#, not only is the constant overhead larger, the binaries seem
> >> to grow quite fast.
> >>
> >> E.g. if I link against some GUI lib, the hello world window+label grows
> >> to 2..5 MB. In Java the same app using Swing is still only a few
> >> kilobytes (label + window + procedure to close the app is 1.2 kB to be
> >> precise). Note that the Java app provides even better runtime
> >> reflection capabilities that D can. I would imagine a larger program
> >> that uses network, sound, graphics, and some other domain specific
> >> libraries would need a 50..100 MB binary .exe file when done in D.
> > 
> > I'd rather use an app that did a bunch of compile-time reflection than
> > one that did a bunch of run-time reflection. And I think that 50..100 MB
> > figure seems quite exaggerated unless you're packing all those art+sound
> > assets into the exe itself (or if you're using that one GUI lib that's
> > been known to result in really inflated exe's, forget which one that
> > was...).
> 
> I've tried both - GTK+ bindings and the SWT port by frank benoit. Both 
> are HUEG