31–40 of 254 posts
They say one of their targets is using this for command-line tools (I'm guessing for startup speed and needing to be small in memory footprint) but it's not of much value if an "echo" or "grep" implementation takes up 15 to 30MB on the drive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Long time Java lover here. I agree with all your points, but in the context of Java at least (does Scala support this?) there is no simple static binary that can be built and released, which includes the JVM. I think 1.9 will have this option, but this is something I didn't realize I missed until I started work with Rust and Go. It makes deployment so much simpler.
In the age of containers it's really not that much harder to build and deploy a JVM app. Edit: thanks for the downvotes but you could at least tell me what's so crazy about my statement.
Rather than fix Confluence to work on OpenJDK (I don't want to imagine what type of reflection garbage they've got going on down there that breaks so bad on OpenJDK), their instructions tell you how to make your own Dockerfile using the official Oracle runtime.
Actually, in that situation, if it won't run on OracleJDK it's probably not going to work via a native compiler either.
It seems to me like Scala's biggest benefit and biggest downside are two sides of the same coin: easy interop with the JVM and Java code. Scala Native just seems like you're paying all the price of that for none of the benefit.
It seems to me like Scala's biggest benefit and biggest downside are two sides of the same coin: easy interop with the JVM and Java code. Scala Native just seems like you're paying all the price of that for none of the benefit.
Scala.js lets you run Scala code on javascript-based VM's and provides full integration with the underlying platform and libraries. Scala native looks to be another attempt to expand Scala's reach into new platforms beyond the JVM.
The generated binary for simple Hello World is 3.45 MB which is quite a lot for printing one line of text but it can be compressed to 326K using UPX.
Rust's is almost the exact same size (3.46 MB). It's probably just that the libraries that are statically linked by default (jemalloc, std, etc.).
Does anyone have any example binaries compiled with this? What are the sizes that you could expect? They say one of their targets is using this for command-line tools (I'm guessing for startup speed and needing to be small in memory footprint) but it's not of much value if an "echo" or "grep" implementation takes up 15 to 30MB on the drive.
In this day & age? It might be of value if an echo or grep takes ~20MB and a full-blown HTTP REST server with DB access takes ~25-30MB. Why do I care again exactly whether there is a fixed portion of bootstrap/runtime core code in the binary, as long as I'm not writing echo or grep?
(Any helloworld app not written in asm (or lib-less C) will consist largely of "non-helloworld code" in terms of "bytes occupied in the binary", right?)
Dunno might be of concern eg with embedded/raspberry and such, but for code to be "moved from a jvm-kinda flair to a go-kinda flair" I'm not seeing the issue .. yet ;)
Does this provide a garbage collector?
It seems to me like Scala's biggest benefit and biggest downside are two sides of the same coin: easy interop with the JVM and Java code. Scala Native just seems like you're paying all the price of that for none of the benefit.