Also, Dan a few year ago for fun did an emulation of the Alto in Squeak that would run Smalltalk-72. The original "blue book" that contained the ST-72 system bootstrap is quite fun to read.
Cheers,
Alan
-----
At 10:18 AM -0400 8/2/02, PhiHo Hoang wrote:
Hi Alan,
Thanks for the info. Frankly (and shame on me), I have not read the
papers you mentioned.
Please post a pointer when you have it. Maybe many others did not have a
chance to read them either.
It would be fun to look at the first VM, the first compiler and the
first image.
I guess they all fit on a floppy (180KB ;-) Cheers, PhiHo.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan Kay" Alan.Kay@squeakland.org To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Sent: Friday, August 02, 2002 9:52 AM Subject: RE: Progrmaming in Bytecode?
The story about Smalltalk-72 is in "The Early History of Smalltalk" that I wrote for ACM's "History of Programming Languages" in 93. I have a pdf file which I'll put on an FTP server somewhere. Also, Dan wrote a truly great paper a few years after Smalltalk-72 about Smalltalk-76, a little of which I included in the "History". However, you should read this as well. I think it was for POPL 78, and there is probably an online copy somewhere ....
Cheers,
Alan
At 1:21 AM -0400 8/2/02, PhiHo Hoang wrote:
Dan,
Fire up those new-age compilers and take us into the new world!
- D
OTOH, I want to go back to the future to look for an old-age compiler.
The one that generated _the_very_first_Smalltalk_image.
( The image that Adam used to show Eva her (e)toy :-).
Just wondering if that compiler was written in C(obol) or S(nobol).
Don't I wish that it were written in S(lang) so that it could be turned into a plugin ;-)
The 30th Anniversary for Smalltalk is around the corner.
Would you tell us how was _the_very_first_Smalltalk_image created ?
And who did it.
Cheers,
PhiHo.
-----Original Message----- From: squeak-dev-admin@lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-admin@lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Dan Ingalls Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 10:38 PM To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: RE: Progrmaming in Bytecode?
The single cycle thing isn't necessarily relevant for Smalltalk, but those
"extended"
bytecodes are really distasteful to me.
I find them distasteful too. I also find the multiple object header formats equally distasteful. OTOH, every little bit counts when trying
to minimise the size of the image -- and there a more than a few people
putting Squeak to work on severely limited machines.
Well, bytecodes do have their place, of course ;-).
But it's great to hear you guys finding the whole current mess distasteful...
--
--