[Modules] Introducing MobVM (was Components or Modules??)

PhiHo Hoang phiho.hoang at home.com
Mon Aug 20 03:54:22 UTC 2001


Bijan Parsia wrote:

> But there's something *golden* about having a 4 file install (vm, image,
> sources, and changes). Wrestingly with VisualWorks packages and paths
tends
> to make me grumpy. Python is way worse. SWI-Prolog (the other system I've
> been dorking with) is somewhat better, if just because it's less elaborate
> (at least, my install is).
>
> Anything that sends me scurrying to the filesystem makes me want to
HOLLER!
> (And not in joy :))

> I think this is on the side of the "casual hacker" person :) I'm fairly
> sure all involved are with me, but I feel inclined to make noise about
> this. The monolithic image has virtues and I'd rather not *lose* them, if
> at all possible.

    Here, here. If 4 file install is that good, I guess 3 file install is
even better. I heard that the image can be embedded in the VM.

    Is it possible to merge 'Source' and 'Changes' ? Why do we need two
separate textfiles (?) for the REAL source ? This will give us a 2 file
install. That's twice as good ;-)

> I think this is on the side of the "casual hacker" person :) I'm fairly
> sure all involved are with me, but I feel inclined to make noise about
> this. The monolithic image has virtues and I'd rather not *lose* them, if
> at all possible.

    If it is possible to embed a binary file (image) in another binary (VM)
then it's no brainer (?) to embed the merged real source into that VM with
embedded image (I think REBOL has about 2Meg. of source text in the
Rebol.exe, VM + compressed text source about 500K). Voila, THE ULTIMATE
really truly monolithic Squeak ;-)

    Any taker ?

   OTOH,  I also like the idea of 1 file install Squeak. This is truly 1
file, not a zip, tar or self extract archive of any sort. It is truly one
Windows executable, Squeak.exe, the 'MobVM'.

    I have a couple of questions to the list (especially the creator of the
[Modules] tag) :

    1/- Is it appropriate to discuss about the 'MobVM' now or should I wait.

    2/- Is it approriate to do so within the [Modules] tag or should it be
elsewhere ?

    Cheers,

    PhiHo.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bijan Parsia" <bparsia at email.unc.edu>
To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Cc: <modsqueak at bluefish.se>
Sent: Thursday, August 16, 2001 8:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Modules] Components or Modules??


> --On Thursday, August 16, 2001 2:12 PM -0700 Allen Wirfs-Brock
> <Allen_Wirfs-Brock at Instantiations.com> wrote:
>
> > So what are we trying to accomplish?  Dan listed a set of "desiderata"
> > that I can whole-heartedly support.  However, I would like to step up
one
> > level before plunging into the details.
> >
> > My understanding is that a common goal is the elimination of the all
> > encompassing, monolithic image. I can't argue with that goal and I don't
> > think I need to reiterate all reasons this is desirable.  However, there
> > are a lot of different  reasons that different constituencies have for
> > wanting to see this happen.  I don't necessarily believe that one
> > solution will make everybody happy.
> [snipped interesting discussion of a reasonable distinction]
>
> I wish to speak for the all encompassing, monolithic image. It's been
> pretty good to me, and good to Smalltalk (and similar systems).
>
> Yes yes yes, shrinking is a pain. Etc. etc. etc. I'm with everyone.
>
> But there's something *golden* about having a 4 file install (vm, image,
> sources, and changes). Wrestingly with VisualWorks packages and paths
tends
> to make me grumpy. Python is way worse. SWI-Prolog (the other system I've
> been dorking with) is somewhat better, if just because it's less elaborate
> (at least, my install is).
>
> Anything that sends me scurrying to the filesystem makes me want to
HOLLER!
> (And not in joy :))
>
> I think this is on the side of the "casual hacker" person :) I'm fairly
> sure all involved are with me, but I feel inclined to make noise about
> this. The monolithic image has virtues and I'd rather not *lose* them, if
> at all possible.
>
> Similarly, there's already at least one modularity/polymorphism dynamic
> going on in the system. (I.e., classes and messages.) (Oh, and projects
and
> changesets and *morphs* and views and... :)) This one is fairly thoroughly
> integrated with the system and its tools.
>
> Anyway, you get the idea :) I wouldn't mind knowing whether a specific
> proposal let me end up with the "happy mess" that is the current image *if
> I want it*. Similarly, I favor solutions that build on the current
> mechanisms.
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan Parsia.
>
>





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list