• Frank Benoit (8/8) May 07 2008 The compiled code for Java SWT+JFace
• Robert Fraser (2/12) May 07 2008 Is this compiled all-at-once or with each object compiled separately?
• Tower Ty (2/15) May 08 2008 Jar files were introduced with JDK1.1 and are based on the Zip format so...
• Frank Benoit (3/4) May 08 2008 all-at-once.
• Robert Fraser (5/10) May 09 2008 In the other direction. Gregor mentioned that if it's compiled
• Gregor Richards (4/15) May 09 2008 If you compile them separately, the /library/ will be larger, but
• torhu (8/23) May 10 2008 I tried this with my dwt project, using dmd on Windows. When dwt is
• terranium (2/4) May 08 2008 Whoa. Poseidon uses DWT and it's a *little* bit smaller.
• John Reimer (4/11) May 08 2008 Poseidon is still using the old dwt. Size has always been a concern of
• novice2 (1/7) May 08 2008 but big diff: you can't run your jar in any windows computer. but with e...
• John Reimer (3/11) May 08 2008 Good point.
• Steven Schveighoffer (13/21) May 08 2008 If you want to compare apples to apples:
• terranium (2/5) May 08 2008 do you think zip can deflate 14MB of executable code to 3MB?
• Steven Schveighoffer (8/14) May 08 2008 Why not? Here is an example of tango:
• John Reimer (20/51) May 08 2008 DWT also still has many instances of "const" use. This won't necessaril...
• terranium (2/6) May 09 2008 So how big is size of compiled DWT library?
• Jesse Phillips (2/10) May 09 2008 I have 11Mb for my .a library.
• Robert Fraser (3/34) May 09 2008 I doubt it. ALl of Tango compiled I think is like 7MB, and I doubt DWT i...
• Neal Alexander (12/18) May 09 2008 Not many users are going to have the D runtime DLL present on their
• Jesse Phillips (9/31) May 09 2008 On a linux system shared libraries are easy to keep correct (if packaged...
• e-t172 (7/12) May 10 2008 That's why there is a Unix convention for library version numbers
• Frank Benoit (3/10) May 08 2008 Yes, indeed. I wonder if UPX was used.
• terranium (2/6) May 09 2008 Does it use old DWT? And what are you writing I wonder? A photoshop?
• Frank Benoit (4/11) May 09 2008 Poseidon uses the SWT port from Shawn.
• yidabu (13/26) May 12 2008 I use dsss to build a simple jface program (just one module), it takes m...
• Frank Benoit (4/10) May 12 2008 You will need a response file to pass the arguements to DMD. The windows...
• Pragma (3/14) May 12 2008 Also, if you opt to not to link in the DWT library, and use the DWT sour...
• yidabu (14/31) May 12 2008 I link in the dwt.lib and dwtx.lib (added to sc.ini), to build Applicati...
• terranium (2/11) May 10 2008 I don't believe D runtime can make any bloat, even whole Phobos is 1MB -...
• Neal Alexander (10/23) May 11 2008 Its not Phobos. "Hello world" in D, OCaml, and haskell/ghc are all
• Bruno Medeiros (5/6) May 25 2008 A jar is simply a zip file, it can be with or without compression.
• terranium (1/1) May 28 2008 Does switching to gdc helps with exe size?

Frank Benoit <keinfarbton googlemail.com> writes:

The compiled code for Java SWT+JFace
swt.jar   1.9  MB
jface.jar 0.95 MB

I would expect that this code ported to D should result in a smaller 
amount of code. Java hold all the reflection information, D not. Afaik 
jar is a zip without using compression.
A compiled DWT app as .exe is about 7 MB and using JFace 14 MB.

Why is that? How can it be done better?

Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:

Frank Benoit wrote:
 The compiled code for Java SWT+JFace
 swt.jar   1.9  MB
 jface.jar 0.95 MB
 
 I would expect that this code ported to D should result in a smaller 
 amount of code. Java hold all the reflection information, D not. Afaik 
 jar is a zip without using compression.
 A compiled DWT app as .exe is about 7 MB and using JFace 14 MB.
 
 Why is that? How can it be done better?

Is this compiled all-at-once or with each object compiled separately?

Tower Ty <tytower hotmail.com.au> writes:

Robert Fraser Wrote:

 Frank Benoit wrote:
 The compiled code for Java SWT+JFace
 swt.jar   1.9  MB
 jface.jar 0.95 MB
 
 I would expect that this code ported to D should result in a smaller 
 amount of code. Java hold all the reflection information, D not. Afaik 
 jar is a zip without using compression.
 A compiled DWT app as .exe is about 7 MB and using JFace 14 MB.
 
 Why is that? How can it be done better?

 
 Is this compiled all-at-once or with each object compiled separately?


Jar files were introduced with JDK1.1 and are based on the Zip format so they
are compressed somewhat

Frank Benoit <keinfarbton googlemail.com> writes:

Robert Fraser Wrote:
 Is this compiled all-at-once or with each object compiled separately?

all-at-once.
Would you expect it, to be a big difference?

Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:

Frank Benoit wrote:
 Robert Fraser Wrote:
 Is this compiled all-at-once or with each object compiled separately?

 
 all-at-once.
 Would you expect it, to be a big difference?

In the other direction. Gregor mentioned that if it's compiled 
separately a bunch of redundant type information is included. He cited 
some library (the old DWT maybe... too lazy to look up the post) that 
ballooned from ~5MB to ~17MB when each file was compile separately.

Gregor Richards <Richards codu.org> writes:

Robert Fraser wrote:
 Frank Benoit wrote:
 Robert Fraser Wrote:
 Is this compiled all-at-once or with each object compiled separately?

 all-at-once.
 Would you expect it, to be a big difference?

 
 In the other direction. Gregor mentioned that if it's compiled 
 separately a bunch of redundant type information is included. He cited 
 some library (the old DWT maybe... too lazy to look up the post) that 
 ballooned from ~5MB to ~17MB when each file was compile separately.

If you compile them separately, the /library/ will be larger, but 
resultant /binaries/ will be smaller.

  - Gregor Richards

torhu <no spam.invalid> writes:

Gregor Richards wrote:
 Robert Fraser wrote:
 Frank Benoit wrote:
 Robert Fraser Wrote:
 Is this compiled all-at-once or with each object compiled separately?

 all-at-once.
 Would you expect it, to be a big difference?

 
 In the other direction. Gregor mentioned that if it's compiled 
 separately a bunch of redundant type information is included. He cited 
 some library (the old DWT maybe... too lazy to look up the post) that 
 ballooned from ~5MB to ~17MB when each file was compile separately.

 
 If you compile them separately, the /library/ will be larger, but 
 resultant /binaries/ will be smaller.

I tried this with my dwt project, using dmd on Windows.  When dwt is 
compiled with oneatatime=yes, my app becomes 1.6 MB.  Without, it's 2.4 
MB.  That's a 50% increase in size.  The library itself is 6.0 MB in 
either case, built with '-O -release'.

When I was still using the old DWT, my app was 1 MB.  Since the old dwt 
was built with bud, all files were compiled at once, so I guess it could 
have been noticably smaller if built one file at a time.

terranium <spam here.lot> writes:

Frank Benoit Wrote:

 A compiled DWT app as .exe is about 7 MB and using JFace 14 MB.
 

Whoa. Poseidon uses DWT and it's a *little* bit smaller.

John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:

On Thu, 08 May 2008 10:15:55 -0400, terranium wrote:

 Frank Benoit Wrote:
 
 
 A compiled DWT app as .exe is about 7 MB and using JFace 14 MB.
 
 

 Whoa. Poseidon uses DWT and it's a *little* bit smaller.


Poseidon is still using the old dwt.  Size has always been a concern of 
mine with dwt (new).  I hope we can get this one figured out.

-JJR

novice2 <sorry noem.ail> writes:

 The compiled code for Java SWT+JFace
 swt.jar   1.9  MB
 jface.jar 0.95 MB
 
 A compiled DWT app as .exe is about 7 MB and using JFace 14 MB.
 

but big diff: you can't run your jar in any windows computer. but with exe -
you can. so you should add Java Runtime (JRE folder) size

John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:

On Thu, 08 May 2008 10:53:38 -0400, novice2 wrote:

 The compiled code for Java SWT+JFace
 swt.jar   1.9  MB
 jface.jar 0.95 MB
 
 A compiled DWT app as .exe is about 7 MB and using JFace 14 MB.
 

 but big diff: you can't run your jar in any windows computer. but with
 exe - you can. so you should add Java Runtime (JRE folder) size


Good point.

-JJR

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

"Frank Benoit" wrote
 The compiled code for Java SWT+JFace
 swt.jar   1.9  MB
 jface.jar 0.95 MB

 I would expect that this code ported to D should result in a smaller 
 amount of code. Java hold all the reflection information, D not. Afaik jar 
 is a zip without using compression.
 A compiled DWT app as .exe is about 7 MB and using JFace 14 MB.

 Why is that? How can it be done better?

If you want to compare apples to apples:

unjar the swt and jface files (this will make a directory structure, find 
out how much space that takes up). Jar files are compressed.

Compile DWT and D JFace into libraries.

Compare those sizes.

The built executables include tango/phobos, so you cannot compare that 
version, unless you want to add in the java runtime jar files :)

D has some reflection information through the typeinfo classes, so I would 
expect the uncompressed sizes to be roughly equivalent.

Once D is natively using DLL/.so to store the runtime, executable sizes 
should go way down.

-Steve 

terranium <spam here.lot> writes:

Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:

 The built executables include tango/phobos, so you cannot compare that 
 version, unless you want to add in the java runtime jar files :)
 

do you think zip can deflate 14MB of executable code to 3MB?

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy yahoo.com> writes:

"terranium" wrote
 Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:

 The built executables include tango/phobos, so you cannot compare that
 version, unless you want to add in the java runtime jar files :)

 do you think zip can deflate 14MB of executable code to 3MB?

Why not?  Here is an example of tango:

-rw-rw-r-- 1 steves steves 6273270 May  8 11:07 libtango-user-dmd.a
-rw-rw-r-- 1 steves steves 1212253 May  8 11:06 libtango-user-dmd.a.gz

6.3MB -> 1.2MB

By that ratio, 14MB should go down to 2.6MB.

Executable code is very compressable, because it's not very random.

-Steve 

John Reimer <terminal.node gmail.com> writes:

On Thu, 08 May 2008 11:00:15 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:

 "Frank Benoit" wrote
 The compiled code for Java SWT+JFace
 swt.jar   1.9  MB
 jface.jar 0.95 MB

 I would expect that this code ported to D should result in a smaller
 amount of code. Java hold all the reflection information, D not. Afaik
 jar is a zip without using compression.
 A compiled DWT app as .exe is about 7 MB and using JFace 14 MB.

 Why is that? How can it be done better?

 
 If you want to compare apples to apples:
 
 unjar the swt and jface files (this will make a directory structure,
 find out how much space that takes up). Jar files are compressed.
 
 Compile DWT and D JFace into libraries.
 
 Compare those sizes.
 
 The built executables include tango/phobos, so you cannot compare that
 version, unless you want to add in the java runtime jar files :)
 
 D has some reflection information through the typeinfo classes, so I
 would expect the uncompressed sizes to be roughly equivalent.
 
 Once D is natively using DLL/.so to store the runtime, executable sizes
 should go way down.
 
 -Steve


DWT also still has many instances of "const" use.  This won't necessarily 
be the cause of such excessive code bloat, but it adds to it.  Also, in 
contrast to the old dwt which integrates many java modules into single D 
modules, our new dwt tries to have a one-to-one module relationship with 
Java SWT (for porting ease).  This MIGHT add an significant load of 
symbols per module to the DWT project (module info).  I'd love to explore 
ways to shrink this down, but I think that would mean compromising future 
porting ease.  It would certainly mean that we'd have to forgo some Java-
isms.  

I guess the dwt port will have to become a exercise in good judgement/
practicality: 1) should we specialize it for the D language, shrink it 
noticeabley, and optimize it further (and forgo the simplicity of porting 
future SWT version updates); or should we keep direct one-to-one module 
consistancy with SWT so that we can track the updates (meaning fairly 
quick DWT version upgrades, but severe and more severe bloat).

Obviously, as already Steven mentions, another option (eventually) would 
be to find a way to turn DWT/Jface into a shared library.  But, at 
present, this appears to be difficult task.

-JJR

terranium <spam here.lot> writes:

John Reimer Wrote:

 DWT also still has many instances of "const" use.  This won't necessarily 
 be the cause of such excessive code bloat, but it adds to it.  Also, in 
 contrast to the old dwt which integrates many java modules into single D 
 modules

So how big is size of compiled DWT library?

Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com> writes:

On Fri, 09 May 2008 06:19:15 -0400, terranium wrote:

 John Reimer Wrote:
 
 DWT also still has many instances of "const" use.  This won't
 necessarily be the cause of such excessive code bloat, but it adds to
 it.  Also, in contrast to the old dwt which integrates many java
 modules into single D modules

 
 So how big is size of compiled DWT library?

I have 11Mb for my .a library.

Robert Fraser <fraserofthenight gmail.com> writes:

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 "Frank Benoit" wrote
 The compiled code for Java SWT+JFace
 swt.jar   1.9  MB
 jface.jar 0.95 MB

 I would expect that this code ported to D should result in a smaller 
 amount of code. Java hold all the reflection information, D not. Afaik jar 
 is a zip without using compression.
 A compiled DWT app as .exe is about 7 MB and using JFace 14 MB.

 Why is that? How can it be done better?

 
 If you want to compare apples to apples:
 
 unjar the swt and jface files (this will make a directory structure, find 
 out how much space that takes up). Jar files are compressed.
 
 Compile DWT and D JFace into libraries.
 
 Compare those sizes.
 
 The built executables include tango/phobos, so you cannot compare that 
 version, unless you want to add in the java runtime jar files :)
 
 D has some reflection information through the typeinfo classes, so I would 
 expect the uncompressed sizes to be roughly equivalent.
 
 Once D is natively using DLL/.so to store the runtime, executable sizes 
 should go way down.
 
 -Steve 

I doubt it. ALl of Tango compiled I think is like 7MB, and I doubt DWT i 
using more than a fraction of Tango.

Neal Alexander <WQEQWEUQY HOTMAIL.COM> writes:

Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 Once D is natively using DLL/.so to store the runtime, executable sizes 
 should go way down.
 
 -Steve 
 
 

Not many users are going to have the D runtime DLL present on their 
system. Even a lot of MSVC++ programs end up being distributed with 
local copies of the MSVCRT runtime just to be sure that people dont have 
broken versions in their system folder.

People need the option to statically or dynamically link the runtime 
based on their specific project needs. Statically linking the core 
runtime is best unless your project is split across multiple D 
executable files/DLLs.

In any case, D's runtime bloat is pretty much on par with OCaml and 
Haskell/GHC(SplitObjs).


DWT seems pretty bloated, but its probably half the size of GTK haha.

Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips gmail.com> writes:

On Fri, 09 May 2008 15:24:20 -0700, Neal Alexander wrote:

 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 Once D is natively using DLL/.so to store the runtime, executable sizes
 should go way down.
 
 -Steve
 
 

 Not many users are going to have the D runtime DLL present on their
 system. Even a lot of MSVC++ programs end up being distributed with
 local copies of the MSVCRT runtime just to be sure that people dont have
 broken versions in their system folder.
 
 People need the option to statically or dynamically link the runtime
 based on their specific project needs. Statically linking the core
 runtime is best unless your project is split across multiple D
 executable files/DLLs.
 
 In any case, D's runtime bloat is pretty much on par with OCaml and
 Haskell/GHC(SplitObjs).
 
 
 DWT seems pretty bloated, but its probably half the size of GTK haha.

On a linux system shared libraries are easy to keep correct (if packaged 
correctly). This is merely a flaw of the OS you're running. :) I couldn't 
resist.

Actually this is one area that makes it more difficult to adopt, packages 
relying on shared libraries conflicting with others that require a 
different version. Where most apps in windows will just carry the needed 
bloat to just make it work. In any case package managers have been a 
great help but don't fix it entirely.

e-t172 <e-t172 akegroup.org> writes:

Jesse Phillips a écrit :
 Actually this is one area that makes it more difficult to adopt, packages 
 relying on shared libraries conflicting with others that require a 
 different version. Where most apps in windows will just carry the needed 
 bloat to just make it work. In any case package managers have been a 
 great help but don't fix it entirely.

That's why there is a Unix convention for library version numbers 
(x.y.z). If there is a breaking change, then the new library is put into 
another package. This way the new library and the old library happily 
cohabit on the system. Software that use the old library will have the 
old library, and software that use the new library will have the new 
library.

Frank Benoit <keinfarbton googlemail.com> writes:

terranium Wrote:

 Frank Benoit Wrote:
 
 A compiled DWT app as .exe is about 7 MB and using JFace 14 MB.
 

 
 Whoa. Poseidon uses DWT and it's a *little* bit smaller.

Yes, indeed. I wonder if UPX was used.
What is the difference? Is it just that the old DWT uses less modules?

terranium <spam here.lot> writes:

Frank Benoit Wrote:

 Whoa. Poseidon uses DWT and it's a *little* bit smaller.

 
 Yes, indeed. I wonder if UPX was used.
 What is the difference? Is it just that the old DWT uses less modules?

Does it use old DWT? And what are you writing I wonder? A photoshop?

Frank Benoit <keinfarbton googlemail.com> writes:

terranium schrieb:
 Frank Benoit Wrote:
 
 Whoa. Poseidon uses DWT and it's a *little* bit smaller.

 Yes, indeed. I wonder if UPX was used.
 What is the difference? Is it just that the old DWT uses less modules?

 
 Does it use old DWT? And what are you writing I wonder? A photoshop?

Poseidon uses the SWT port from Shawn.

I am talking about a simple test apps. The structure of SWT make every 
app to pull in a big part of the SWT lib.

yidabu <yidabu.spam gmail.com> writes:

On Thu, 08 May 2008 14:47:21 -0400
Frank Benoit <keinfarbton googlemail.com> wrote:

 terranium Wrote:
 
 Frank Benoit Wrote:
 
 A compiled DWT app as .exe is about 7 MB and using JFace 14 MB.
 

 
 Whoa. Poseidon uses DWT and it's a *little* bit smaller.

 
 Yes, indeed. I wonder if UPX was used.
 What is the difference? Is it just that the old DWT uses less modules?
 

I use dsss to build a simple jface program (just one module), it takes more
than 800 obj files (modules), the executable size is 15 MB. ( dwt-win svn,
dwt-addons svn). 

Does all 800 modules must compile in the simple jface program ? 

btw, seems impossible to build a jface program by dmd directly.

-- 
yidabu <yidabu.spam gmail.com>
http://www.dsource.org/projects/dwin

D ÓïÑÔ-ÖÐÎÄ(D Chinese):
http://www.d-programming-language-china.org/
http://bbs.d-programming-language-china.org/
http://dwin.d-programming-language-china.org/
http://scite4d.d-programming-language-china.org/

Frank Benoit <keinfarbton googlemail.com> writes:

yidabu schrieb:
 I use dsss to build a simple jface program (just one module), it takes more
than 800 obj files (modules), the executable size is 15 MB. ( dwt-win svn,
dwt-addons svn). 
 
 Does all 800 modules must compile in the simple jface program ? 
 
 btw, seems impossible to build a jface program by dmd directly.
 

You will need a response file to pass the arguements to DMD. The windows 
comand line is restricted to 8192 characters. The build tools like 
DSSS/bud should do this by default.

Pragma <eric.t.anderton gmail.com> writes:

Frank Benoit Wrote:

 yidabu schrieb:
 I use dsss to build a simple jface program (just one module), it takes more
than 800 obj files (modules), the executable size is 15 MB. ( dwt-win svn,
dwt-addons svn). 
 
 Does all 800 modules must compile in the simple jface program ? 
 
 btw, seems impossible to build a jface program by dmd directly.
 

 
 You will need a response file to pass the arguements to DMD. The windows 
 comand line is restricted to 8192 characters. The build tools like 
 DSSS/bud should do this by default.

Also, if you opt to not to link in the DWT library, and use the DWT sources
directly, rebuild/bud should mange the .obj dependencies for you.  That should
result in a smaller executable size, at the cost of a longer compile.

- Pragma

yidabu <yidabu.spam gmail.com> writes:

On Mon, 12 May 2008 10:59:21 -0400
Pragma <eric.t.anderton gmail.com> wrote:

 Frank Benoit Wrote:
 
 yidabu schrieb:
 I use dsss to build a simple jface program (just one module), it takes more
than 800 obj files (modules), the executable size is 15 MB. ( dwt-win svn,
dwt-addons svn). 
 
 Does all 800 modules must compile in the simple jface program ? 
 
 btw, seems impossible to build a jface program by dmd directly.
 

 
 You will need a response file to pass the arguements to DMD. The windows 
 comand line is restricted to 8192 characters. The build tools like 
 DSSS/bud should do this by default.

 
 Also, if you opt to not to link in the DWT library, and use the DWT sources
directly, rebuild/bud should mange the .obj dependencies for you.  That should
result in a smaller executable size, at the cost of a longer compile.
 
 - Pragma


I link in the dwt.lib and dwtx.lib (added to sc.ini), to build
ApplicationWindow based jface program by dmd directly:
dmd test.d -L/SUBSYSTEM:windows:5

test.exe cause unhandled runtime exception:
tango.core.Exception.IllegalElementException: Attempt to include invalid key
_in Collection

-- 
yidabu <yidabu.spam gmail.com>
http://www.dsource.org/projects/dwin

D ÓïÑÔ-ÖÐÎÄ(D Chinese):
http://www.d-programming-language-china.org/
http://bbs.d-programming-language-china.org/
http://dwin.d-programming-language-china.org/
http://scite4d.d-programming-language-china.org/

terranium <spam here.lot> writes:

Neal Alexander Wrote:

 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 Once D is natively using DLL/.so to store the runtime, executable sizes 
 should go way down.
 
 -Steve 
 
 

 In any case, D's runtime bloat is pretty much on par with OCaml and 
 Haskell/GHC(SplitObjs).

I don't believe D runtime can make any bloat, even whole Phobos is 1MB - how it
can become 14MB?

Neal Alexander <WQEQWEUQY HOTMAIL.COM> writes:

terranium wrote:
 Neal Alexander Wrote:
 
 Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
 Once D is natively using DLL/.so to store the runtime, executable sizes 
 should go way down.

 -Steve 

 In any case, D's runtime bloat is pretty much on par with OCaml and 
 Haskell/GHC(SplitObjs).

 
 I don't believe D runtime can make any bloat, even whole Phobos is 1MB - how
it can become 14MB?

Its not Phobos. "Hello world" in D, OCaml, and haskell/ghc are all 
around 300kb (+-100k)

DWT or GTK can easily add 10mb to a distro. There may be D bindings for 
lightweight GUI toolkits like FLTK (http://www.fltk.org/) or something - 
   i dunno, i never bothered checking. Even if theres no bindings, you 
can always use some WYSIWYG tool to generate a C skeleton to plug your D 
code into.


And on a side note: last time i native compiled a quick graph 
visualization GUI in java the dependencies were like 50mb heh.

Bruno Medeiros <brunodomedeiros+spam com.gmail> writes:

Frank Benoit wrote:
Afaik jar is a zip without using compression.

A jar is simply a zip file, it can be with or without compression.


-- 
Bruno Medeiros - Software Developer, MSc. in CS/E graduate
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?BrunoMedeiros#D

terranium <spam here.lot> writes:

Does switching to gdc helps with exe size?