An Elm REPL for my phone

Show and Tell
10

I started with a few tests over the past week and don’t want this thread to close while I’m away on the weekend, so I will now post already a naive size comparison

Naive size comparison overview

As an overview, I got these download sizes (gzipped) of the compilers:

But this comparison is unfair, because the Elm implementations

  1. were not compiled with the --optimize flag. They both contain Debug statements, so they will be smaller and faster without those.
  2. contain more functionality: init, install, repl. The wasm compiler only runs different variants of make.

Longer

> git submodule  
51cdc1a4e4488828d531cbdcf6b2e935d70b8826 compiler/guida (heads/master)  
4ea648a53149451b4942a84ac72ebfde24b718e9 compiler/marc136 (heads/main-wasm)
7823c804c3895a1ab962c8a3a347b9752467aa18 compiler/pithub (heads/main)

# 1st compiler
[4.0K]  compiler/guida/bin/
├── [3.3M]  guida.debug.js
├── [412K]  guida.debug.js.gz
├── [3.3M]  guida.js
├── [412K]  guida.js.gz
├── [843K]  guida.swc.js
├── [206K]  guida.swc.js.gz
└── [ 11K]  index.js

# 2nd compiler
[4.0K]  compiler/pithub/dist/
├── [ 216]  eval-elm.js
├── [4.2K]  favicon.ico
├── [3.1M]  index.debug.js
├── [445K]  index.debug.js.gz
├── [ 289]  index.html
├── [2.9M]  index.js
├── [413K]  index.js.gz
├── [744K]  index.swc.js
├── [204K]  index.swc.js.gz
├── [ 27K]  source-code-pro.ttf
├── [ 34K]  source-sans-pro.ttf
└── [3.1K]  styles.css

# 3rd compiler
[4.0K]  compiler/marc136/dist
├── [4.6K]  repl.js  
├── [4.8M]  repl.opt.wasm  
├── [1.3M]  repl.opt.wasm.gz  
├── [6.3M]  repl.wasm  
├── [1.4M]  repl.wasm.gz  
├── [4.6K]  ulm.js  
├── [5.2M]  ulm.opt.wasm  
├── [1.4M]  ulm.opt.wasm.gz  
├── [ 10M]  ulm.wasm  
└── [1.7M]  ulm.wasm.gz

To create the `.opt.wasm` builds, I use `wasm-opt`, but for some commits of ghc-wasm-meta it fails to parse the initial wasm output.
The 1.4M of ulm.opt.tar.gz is what would be downloaded in the browser, and it would 
execute the 5.2M.
5 Likes