Re: reducing lisp programs' size

[ddyer@netcom.com (Dave Dyer)]

It is true that pound-for-pound, lisp requires more real memory, more real disk,
and more CPU to get the same actual results from a running program.  The trick
is to get a running program.

For my money, efforts to reduce a completed lisp program's size by
treeshaking, or fasloading, or making shared libraries are not worth
the effort in modern virtual memory environments.  

Fasloading is essentially sleight of hand - it merely moves the memory
to someplace you don't notice it so easily.

Treeshaking has real effect, but risks introducing bugs, has little
effect on performance, and marginal effect on size.

Building shared libraries can yield real benefits, *if* there are several
lisp programs running to do the sharing.  Most places, its a struggle
to get the first lisp program on the run list.

It is wonderful to be able to download trivially small programs with
wonderful functionality, but that isn't Lisp's niche.

---
My home page: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/dd/ddyer/home.html
or try http://www.triple-i.com/~ddyer/home.html
-- 
---
My home page: ftp://ftp.netcom.com/pub/dd/ddyer/home.html
or try http://www.triple-i.com/~ddyer/home.html