Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by CyberDildonics 499 days ago
So you are shipping all of llvm?
1 comments
dapperdrake 499 days ago
Well, if you want to just-in-time compile, then it seems like a compiler is one way to go.

They are now in the size realm of Lisp and Smalltalk. Forth may lean towards the lighter side.

link
CyberDildonics 499 days ago
Lisp and Smalltalk are 266 MB?

tcc is 100KB

https://www.bellard.org/tcc/

link
folmar 498 days ago
Squeak Smalltalk is 53 MB on Windows (excluding sources). 48 MB of that is the image with UI framework and so on, but it's not immediately easy to say which library/ui parts are core.
link
lifthrasiir 499 days ago
TCC doesn't do much optimization in turn, while commercial implementations of Lisp and Smalltalk are surely much larger than that.
link
CyberDildonics 498 days ago
I'm not sure what your point is. The person I replied to was justifying a 266MB binary by saying a compiler was included. Are you saying optimization would make tcc 2,660 times as big?
link
lifthrasiir 498 days ago
The point is that LLVM does much, much more than TCC and, while it is definitely possible that LLVM could have done that in a smaller binary, TCC is probably not a good thing to compare with because it only does a bare minimum. I should also note that LLVM is a cross-compiler by default...
link
CyberDildonics 498 days ago
The person I replied to just said it is 266MB because it includes a compiler, and that obviously isn't true.

https://github.com/bytecodealliance/wasm-micro-runtime

This says 4000 lines

https://github.com/explodingcamera/tinywasm

What are we talking about here? There is obviously no reason a wasm jit has to be 266 MB

link