[enneff]

http://golang.org/doc/faq#Why_is_my_trivial_program_such_a_l...

The linkers in the gc tool chain (5l, 6l, and 8l) do static linking. All Go binaries therefore include the Go run-time, along with the run-time type information necessary to support dynamic type checks, reflection, and even panic-time stack traces.

A simple C "hello, world" program compiled and linked statically using gcc on Linux is around 750 kB, including an implementation of printf. An equivalent Go program using fmt.Printf is around 1.9 MB, but that includes more powerful run-time support and type information.

[arsv]

> A simple C "hello, world" program compiled and linked statically using gcc on Linux is around 750 kB

diet gcc -o hello hello.c; strip hello

2280 bytes on my system.

There are reasons why using glibc results in executables so big, and why it is tolerated (kind of). Those reasons hardly apply to a new language being actively developed. Yet said language produces executables almost twice the size.

"Run-time support and type information", why is it linked into a an executable that never allocates memory and does no introspection of any kind?

[enneff]

> "Run-time support and type information", why is it linked into a an executable that never allocates memory and does no introspection of any kind?

fmt.Print does use reflection.

Besides, bickering over the size of hello world is pretty pointless; better to compare the size of programs that actually do something.

We do recognise that Go binaries can and should be smaller, but probably not as small as you might hope.

https://github.com/golang/go/issues/6853

[eternalban]

It is a valid point considering the lack of dynamic linking. Go (as is) strongly suggests having lots of "small programs" compose a larger (modular) system on a node. So those 1.9MBs do add up.

[enneff]

This makes me laugh, considering at Google we regularly deploy statically linked C++ programs that are two orders of magnitude larger.

"You call that a big binary? THIS..." etc

[noir_lord]

I was generating 7-15Mb binaries out of Delphi in the late 90's (it had a similar kitchen sink approach) and it simply wasn't an issue then and it certainly isn't an issue now.

I'm actually racking my brain for a case where a 500kb vs 5Mb binary would be a deal breaker, outside of embedded stuff I can't think of much.

[hammerandtongs]

Just as a minor point -

One of the major blockers to clojure in android is that the lack of treeshaking/deadcode elimination makes for 10 second+ startup times in most environments.

[skybrian]

It matters when you have to download the file over a slow network.

"The ideal size is 10-15MB globally. Idea size for an app for tier 2/3 countries (like India) is below 5MB. 500MB+ is a non-starter. At 50MB+ the conversion rates fall off dramatically."

http://time.com/3589909/internet-next-billion-mobile/

[eternalban]

From what I hear you have the funds and resources to operate at that scale.

[enneff]

Part of the reason Go exists is because of such issues. Believe me, it's not desirable.

My point is, on typical machines today, even a 10mb binary is not an issue at all.

[arsv]

> Besides, bickering over the size of hello world is pretty pointless; better to compare the size of programs that actually do something.

It is not about the size of hello world executable, that is just a symptom. A code smell if you like. There is something badly broken in the dead code (or dead data) elimination area. And I hope that code is in fact dead, because if it is not, add code generation to the list of smelly things.

What I suspect I see here is a kind of C++ vtable problem built deep into the language design somewhere. And the reaction is, let's talk about large executables so that it would kinda become not so visible. Or maybe let's take a look at glibc, because glibc is definitely a paragon of clear design befitting a new language.

> fmt.Print does use reflection

There are two problems with this. The lesser one is why does it need reflection to print a string. The bigger one is why do I see about 600 reflect.* entries in the resulting ELF instead of a single one for the string type.

[enneff]

> The bigger one is why do I see about 600 reflect. entries in the resulting ELF instead of a single one for the string type.*

There is definitely work that can be done to improve dead code elimination in the Go tool chain. The transition to Go will make this easier to achieve.

> What I suspect I see here is a kind of C++ vtable problem built deep into the language design somewhere.

Don't suspect. Dig into the problem and make some informed commentary. Idly speculating on HN is just spreading FUD, and benefits no-one.

You should read about Go's implementation of interfaces. It's not the same as C++'s vtable issue. http://research.swtch.com/interfaces

[mholt]

> The lesser one is why does it need reflection to print a string.

It doesn't print just strings. It can print anything. http://golang.org/src/fmt/print.go?s=6420:6467#L221

After doing your research, you're welcome to submit a magical CL and PR that brings down the binary sizes, then you won't need to argue anymore.

[arsv]

> After doing your research, you're welcome to submit a magical CL and PR that brings down the binary sizes, then you won't need to argue anymore.

The original link is titled "The State of Go". The first thing I want to know about a state of a new language is whether it works. Then how well it works. Then, maybe, how to fix it and which VCS to use. There is an issue I think is within the range of these two questions, but it is not even mentioned there.

So to make life a bit easier for people who like me expect that issue to be discussed first, I posted a comment summarizing (in my opinion) the state of Go.

My thoughts on how to fix it are hardly relevant to the current state of Go.

> It doesn't print just strings. It can print anything.

The fact it is just a string should be statically (build-time) inferable in a strongly-typed language. Reflection, at least as I understand it, implies run-time type information. So the question does make sense. Yes, I understand why it may be needed for a particular implementation of printf, this is why I called it a lesser issue.

[enneff]

> I posted a comment summarizing (in my opinion) the state of Go.

Not trying to be rude, but your uninformed opinion is less valuable than you think.

[vetinari]

> A simple C "hello, world" program compiled and linked statically using gcc

Statically. Care to check "ldd hello" of your binary?

[arsv]

"not a dynamic executable"

In case you wonder, that's dietlibc which is typically built with no dynamic linking capabilities whatsover.

[ori_b]

Are you sure that fmt doesn't allocate memory or do introspection?