Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Non-technical Haskell question

Ketil Malde wrote:

John Goerzen writes:

...

...

sensibly share libraries between apps. Anyway, disc is cheap.

...

Memory not so much, though. One advantage of having something in .so form is that every instance of every application that uses it shares the same in-memory image of the code.

Well, a 5 Mbyte [1] overhead isn't really that much, IMHO. You'd need to run a lot of (different; if they're the same, the text will be shared) applications to get any measurable benefit. Eventually, it would be nice to have dynamic linkage, but I can see why it isn't a priority.

I find the size of the binaries generated by ghc when I use wxhaskell totally stupefying. A considerable time is spent just linking the final binary. (The big culprit is that wxhaskell is far to monolithic so you get all kinds of stuff linked in even if you don't use it.) I think the lack of dynamic linking of Haskell libraries is a real shame, and I don't buy the versioning argument. You can have enough sefety checks to at least detect versioning problems. -- Lennart