Progrmaming in Bytecode?

PhiHo Hoang phiho.hoang at rogers.com
Fri Aug 2 14:18:52 UTC 2002


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 at squeakland.org>
To: <squeak-dev at 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 at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> >[mailto:squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Dan
> >Ingalls
> >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
> >"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...
>
>
> --
>




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list