How Many Years Until QB64ers are CALL OBSOLETE?

[ahenry3068]

With regard to programming languages, below atre some interesting tests for the simple "Hello, World!":

---

C Source:

Code: (Select All)

//  hello.c
//
#include <stdio.h>
int main(int argc, const char * argv[]) {
    printf("Hello, World!\n");
    return 0;
}

Source size:       151 bytes
Executable size: 27,520 bytes

---

C++ Source:

Code: (Select All)

//  hello.cpp
//
#include <iostream.h>
int main(int argc, const char * argv[]) {
    printf("Hello, World!\n");
    return 0;
}

Source size:       159 bytes
Executable size: 36,480 bytes (That's already 35% larger than with C for the same tiny program!)

---

qb64pe Source:

Code: (Select All)

'  hello.bas
'
print("Hello, World!")

Source size:       36 bytes
Executable size: 1,249,892 bytes (+ hello_start.command size: 261 bytes)

---

Who can explain such a difference in size between all these executables (which BTW proves that C is more efficient than C++ even for such a tiny program)?
And why such a huge difference especially between the code generated with C++ and that created with qb64pe, since the qb64pe's executable is said to be the generated code of the "basic" language code simply translated into C++ code?
So, what is added to the qb64pe code to create an executable 35 times larger, and why?
I would like to understand, simply to satisfy my curiosity.
Cheers.
Fifi
Lets add this:   (Makes QB64PE look A LOT better !)
RUST

fn main() {
  println!("Hello World!");
}

44 bytes of source.
Executable size:      13,271,344 BYTES !!!!

---

---