[racket] #lang racket vs. racket/base

On Thu, 13 Feb 2014 16:12:44 -0600
Robby Findler <robby at 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.lotz at arcor.de> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 09:55:16 -0600
> > Robby Findler
> > <robby at 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
> >
>