From: Ruben <Ruben.Vandeginste@...>
Date: 2004-07-20T23:34:44+09:00
Subject: Re: Compiling Ruby code


At Tue, 20 Jul 2004 21:47:58 +0900,
James, Roshan (Cognizant) wrote:
> 
> Thanks for pointing me at these. I just tried rubyscript2exe - very
> impressive. Yes this should solve the problem to certain extent - only
> that the overhead is amazing. A simple 'puts "hello world"' took approx
> 900k. The size doesn't grow very much with the size of the program, but
> increases in leaps when you use libraries. 

I noticed that too, that you already have 900k for something tiny, but
on the other hand, that 900k includes the whole Ruby interpreter, so
it's probably not that bad. I also tried to use UPX
(http://upx.sourceforge.net/) to make a smaller executable, but for
some reason this failed. (and i didn't bother looking further into it)

> Yes native woulf be the best, but using a mainstream runtime would
> enable Ruby to leverage the effort undertaken by creators of the
> runtime. I cannot say much for the JVM, but most machines have the CLR
> by now - esp if you have been using the windows updates. For unix
> systems also there are CLR available. 

Well... then let's just make the Ruby interpreter a mainstream one :P
Naah.. i understand what you mean (allthough i don't have Mono
installed, and i still refuse to let windows-update install the .NET
runtime since i don't have anything that depends on it and it takes up
a lot of space).

Ruben