On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 16:12:44 -0600 Robby Findler <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote:
> Oh, apparently the difference you're seeing is indeed racket/match. I > see that the contract system is already pulled in with those requires > -- it is bigger than racket/match. (You can see what libraries are > indirectly loaded by using DrRacket's View|Show Module Browser.) > > Anyway, in the current git version (with the change to racket/date I > mentioned yesterday), I get 2.2M for the version without racket/date > and 2.3 for the version with. But in 5.94, I see 3.9M for the version > with racket/date. > > Robby > > Thanks for explaining and optimizing. The new space utilization in current sounds really great. -- Manfred > > On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Manfred Lotz > <manfred.l...@arcor.de> wrote: > > > On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:55:16 -0600 > > Robby Findler > > <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: > > > > > Looks like most of the size increase from racket/date is that > > > you're pulling in the contract system. > > > > No quite sure about this. > > > > I have > > > > #lang racket/base > > > > (require racket/cmdline > > racket/string > > racket/format > > racket/port > > racket/path > > racket/list) > > > > which gives a size of 2123435 for the executable. > > > > I add one line > > (require racket/date) > > and the executable has size 4029647 > > > > Is there something implicit happening with the contract system? > > > > > > -- > > Manfred > > > > > > ____________________ > > Racket Users list: > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > > > ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
