Progrmaming in Bytecode?
phiho.hoang at rogers.com
Fri Aug 2 05:21:22 UTC 2002
> 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
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
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
And who did it.
From: squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org
[mailto:squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Dan
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 10:38 PM
To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
Subject: RE: Progrmaming in Bytecode?
> > The single cycle
>> thing isn't necessarily relevant for Smalltalk, but those
>> 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
More information about the Squeak-dev