Looks like most of the size increase from racket/date is that you're pulling in the contract system. Still, there was some dead code in that file whose removal let me remove a few requires from it (eliminating a dependency on racket/match, since none of the things racket/date requires require it). I'll push those changes later on today.
Robby On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 7:59 AM, Manfred Lotz <manfred.l...@arcor.de> wrote: > On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 06:07:17 -0700 > Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > > > At Wed, 12 Feb 2014 06:02:30 +0100, Manfred Lotz wrote: > > > I just read Neil van Dyke's statement: > > > > > > < "#lang racket" is for demos, IMHO; I *always* use "#lang > > > racket/base" < for any code that's not a demo. > > > > > > Question: What are the advantages of doing requires explicitly? > > > > > > In a program of mine I changed #lang racket to #lang racket/base and > > > added: > > > > > > (require racket/cmdline) > > > (require racket/string) > > > (require racket/format) > > > (require racket/port) > > > (require racket/path) > > > (require racket/list) > > > > > > > > > The resulting executable (created by raco exe...) had the same size. > > > > I'm surprised that they were the same size, assuming that you didn't > > import other libraries that have more dependencies. > > > > With these two files: > > > > r.rkt > > ----- > > #lang racket > > > > > > My system is a 64 bit Fedora 20. > > Size here is: 5045135 > > > b.rkt > > ----- > > #lang racket/base > > (require racket/cmdline > > racket/string > > racket/format > > racket/port > > racket/path > > racket/list) > > > > on my machine, `raco exe b.rkt` produces a 2.4 MB executable, while > > `raco exe r.rkt` produces a 5.2MB executable. > > > > Hm, ok you are right. This one has size: 2123527 > > I had to add more stuff: > > racket/date which makes it much larger: 4029753 > > > (require openssl) > (require openssl/sha1) > > which makes a size of: 4511202 > > > In my source I found a mistake. I had a require for a file.rkt > which still had racket instead of racket/base. Changing this saved me 1 > MB compared to the initial 5602007 bytes size. > > > > There's a similarly significant difference in startup times for me: > > > > laptop% time racket -l racket/base > > 0.030u 0.013s 0:00.04 100.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w > > laptop% time racket -l racket/base -l racket/string -l > > racket/cmdline \ -l racket/format -l racket/port -l racket/path -l > > racket/list 0.103u 0.029s 0:00.13 92.3% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w > > laptop% time racket -l racket > > 0.155u 0.041s 0:00.19 100.0% 0+0k 0+0io 0pf+0w > > > > These times are similar on my system. > > > > -- > Manfred > > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
