StaticCompiler.jl

search I'd say, but difficult to put in production. There is some word going around though that there is an even better static compiler in the making, but as long as that one is not publicly available I'd say that Julia cannot easily be called from other languages. [1]: https://github.com/tshort/StaticCompiler.jl [2]: https://github.com/JuliaLang/PackageCompiler.jl [3]: https://github.com/MilesCranmer/PySR

al/embedding/ [2] https://pypi.org/project/juliacall/ [3] https://www.rdocumentation.org/packages/JuliaCall/ [4] https://github.com/Clemapfel/jluna [5] https://github.com/Taaitaaiger/jlrs [6] https://github.com/JuliaLang/PackageCompiler.jl [7] https://github.com/tshort/StaticCompiler.jl

erating huge executables, but you can do work to trim them. There is still work to do on the size of them. * StaticCompiler.jl [5], which is still in the experimental phase. But it is far from being completely brittle. It does puts several restrictions on the chide you can write and compile with it, basically turning Julia in a static type language. But it had been successfully used to compile linkable libraries and executables. Some of the concerns you have about usability in your third paragraph have been worked on with the 1.9 and 1.10 (coming) releases. The LSP usage is better thanks to native code caching, maybe you can try it again (of you have time). The debugging experience I honestly think is top notch if you're using Debugger.jl+Revise.jl [6] [7], still I know there are some caveats in it. About stack traces, there is also a more of work done to make them better and more readable, you can read the with done in these PR's [8] [9] [10] [11, for state of Julia talk]. Still, I can understand that Julia might not be able (yet) to cover all the usecases or workflows of different people. [1]: https://julialang.org/blog/2023/04/julia-1.9-highlights/#cac... [2]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EafTuyy7apY [3]: https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/manual/performance-tips/#Wr... [4]: https://julialang.github.io/PackageCompiler.jl [5]: https://github.com/tshort/StaticCompiler.jl [6]: https://github.com/JuliaDebug/Debugger.jl [7]: https://timholy.github.io/Revise.jl/stable/ [8]: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/49117 [9]: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/49959 [10]: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/45069 [11]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2D8oRtDJEeg&t=2487

ter options for AoT compiling small, static, standalone executables and libraries. [1]: https://julialang.github.io/PackageCompiler.jl/dev/ [2]: https://github.com/tshort/StaticCompiler.jl [3]: https://discourse.julialang.org/t/ann-the-ion-command-line-f... [4]: https://discourse.julialang.org/t/extremely-slow-execution-t... [5]: https://discourse.julialang.org/t/extremely-slow-execution-t... [6]: https://www.reddit.com/r/Julia/comments/ytegfk/size_of_a_hel...

strᵢ = MallocString(pᵢ) # Can wrap to get high-level interface println(strᵢ) # No need to `free` since we didn't allocate this memory end println(c"That was fun, see you next time!") return 0 end # Compile executable using StaticCompiler # `] add https://github.com/tshort/StaticCompiler.jl` to get latest master filepath = compile_executable(print_args, (Int64, Ptr{Ptr{UInt8}}), "./") yielding: shell> ./print_args 1 2 3 4 5.0 foo Argument count is 7: ./print_args 1 2 3 4 5.0 foo That was fun, see you next time! shell> hyperfine './print_args hello there' Benchmark 1: ./print_args hello there Time (mean ± σ): 2.2 ms ± 0.5 ms [User: 0.8 ms, System: 0.0 ms] Range (min … max): 1.5 ms … 5.5 ms 564 runs Warning: Command took less than 5 ms to complete. Results might be inaccurate. shell> ls -lh print_args -rwxr-xr-x 1 user staff 8.5K Feb 10 02:36 print_args GC allocations are allowed if you use instead the approach in this PR [3], but we haven't wrangled that approach to produce standalone binaries yet. [1] https://github.com/tshort/StaticCompiler.jl [2] https://github.com/brenhinkeller/StaticTools.jl [3] https://github.com/tshort/StaticCompiler.jl/pull/58