Re: [STUMP] Why did somebody suggest "don't use clisp" ?

[Adrian Owen]

Hi,

I am not sure that the binary size actually much difference for
performance really.  We like to think "smaller" and "lightweight" are
more optimal.  I think perhaps the gentoo users should take some blame
for this:) I should say I know very little about the subject, but you
might poke around the ideas like:

"How does this process malloc or manage memory"? (re: size, memory)
"What libraries on the system are linked at runtime?" (re: size)
"What does fast even mean in my context, is it responsiveness?  Are
there scheduling adjustment knobs  I could turn in my kernel to make
it feel faster?"

If you are concerned about the disk size you could try something like
this in your .xinitrc  *saw this one on an irc channel the other day,
haven't tried yet*

exec /usr/bin/sbcl --eval  '(ql:quickload "stumpwm")' --eval
'(stumpwm:stumpwm)'

Voila, stumpwm is compiled when you start X.

stumpwm is pretty awesome, thanks everyone!



Adrian Owen




On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 1:04 AM, z_axis <address@hidden> wrote:
> $uname -a
> FreeBSD mybsd.zsoft.com 9.0-RELEASE-p3 ...
>
> $pkg_info -Qx clisp
> clisp-threaded-2.49_4
>
> The stumpwm built using clisp is smallest and works fast and steady.
>
> -rwxr-xr-x  1 *** ***  40751128  2月 11 11:54 ~/bin/stumpwm*-sbcl
> -rwxr-xr-x  1 *** ***  28917776  9 29 19:42 ~/bin/stumpwm-ccl*
> -rwxr-xr-x  1 *** ***   8069936 10 16 13:18 ~/bin/stumpwm-clisp*
>
>
> Regards!
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Stumpwm-devel mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/stumpwm-devel