bootBASIC VS musl-cross-make

BASIC interpreter in 512 bytes of 8086 asm

Here's another single sector language https://github.com/nanochess/bootBASIC

I've done the same alpine trick for static binaries but may I introduce you to musl-cross-make?

https://github.com/richfelker/musl-cross-make

Just burned out static toolchains that make me static binaries for all architectures gcc supports. Much like musl.cc but they suggest building your own and I do.

I use these toolchains on debian (/ anywhere a non-ancient linux kernel runs) to make static binaries, you can too!

Python obviously isn't 14kb because its code is divided into hundreds of shared object files. So the way I like to measure things is using static executable size, using tools like https://github.com/jart/cosmopolitan or https://github.com/richfelker/musl-cross-make of which you'll find a static build in the cosmo repo. For example, here's the technique I used to build TinyLISP was something like this:

I have a different issue with ring. This is on a custom Cortex A9 board at work. For most depedencies I can get compilation working fine with armv7-unknown-linux-musleabihf. I was able to build the cross compiler using https://github.com/richfelker/musl-cross-make , adding

A bit off topic, I hope someday GCC's build system gets overhauled. A huge advantage of LLVM is that it is quite easier to rebuild the runtime libraries without rebuilding the compiler. With GCC that's a pain, unless one takes the time to re-package GCC very carefully like https://github.com/richfelker/musl-cross-make and https://exherbo.org/.

Maybe getting some new GCC devs in there with projects like this would help with that?