search

trueagi-io / hyperon-experimental

MeTTa programming language implementation
https://metta-lang.dev
MIT License
151 stars 49 forks source link

Minimize docker image size #732

Closed vsbogd closed 4 months ago

vsbogd commented 4 months ago

Use minimal Python 3.10 image based on Debian python:3.10-slim-bookworm as a starting point. Use multi-stage build to start from clean environment after building is finished. In addition debug information is stripped from Rust binaries. Resulting image's size is about 180 Mb which is 50Mb greater than the Python runtime size.

Rust executable file is renamed to metta-rust and Python executable is aliased by metta-py in order to remove name conflict between them. Documentation is updated.

.dockerignore file is added in order to make Docker builds faster. .dockerfile is a soft-link to the /.gitignore which now keeps all files ignored by Git in repo. Welcome message is added to the container to show environment version and explain basic commands.

luketpeterson commented 4 months ago

Sorry to bring this up after you already implemented the name change, I want to discuss the name metta-rust, as opposed to something else. To me, it seems like the fact that it's implemented with Rust is a detail, and something like metta-repl or metta-cli might be more appropriate.

But it's not a big deal to me, if you feel differently.

vsbogd commented 4 months ago

I want to discuss the name metta-rust, as opposed to something else.

Thanks @luketpeterson I added you and @Necr0x0Der mainly to discuss this matter.

The problem I am trying to solve we now have two execution points but users only know about one. For the end user the difference between them (from my perspective) is the following: one is started from Python and fully Python compatible, other is started from Rust and its Python compatibility is under question. Both could be REPL potentially but Python implementation doesn't have this feature yet.

Choosing this naming scheme I want to clearly separate them in user's mind according the criteria I see. There is a question which one should be aliased by metta keyword. In fact I would prefer Rust one as a default (I even raised #605) but as I wrote its compatibility with Python is under the question. In fact it doesn't even start on my environment without Python being disabled.

Saying this I don't insist on this particular naming scheme and I ready to rename one more time metta-rust to metta-repl. I just don't think it reflects the specifics good enough. I would suggest renaming Python interpreter into metta-py anyway to reflect its specifics.

vsbogd commented 4 months ago

Renaming question intersects with a conceptual question: do we want separate executable for each runtime we support? On the one hand we would prefer single executable supporting all needed runtimes. On the other hand while we probably can doing this we didn't do this yet even for Python. Thus while we prefer having single metta executable implemented in Rust de-facto we have two different implementations for Rust and Python. And in fact I don't think that metta-repl is more long-term than metta-rust but as I said I am ready to use metta-repl as well.

vsbogd commented 4 months ago

@luketpeterson , renamed to metta-repl in https://github.com/trueagi-io/hyperon-experimental/pull/732/commits/6b62400e7bf6c509b96c310d35870c3fb0843a2c