"Stephen Pair" <spair at acm.org> wrote:
[SNIP of a lot of stuff]
> An analysis of my current working image (which has 623,385 objects in
> it) indicates that such changes in the object memory layout will result
> in about an 11% increase the amount of memory needed for this set of
> objects (about 78% of the objects in my image are small and compact,
> another 4.4% are large)

Did I get that right - does your image only grow by 11% with these
changes?
Eh, I thought that all that "compact classes stuff" had a larger impact
than that.

So... why do we bother with them (and the small hash) at all? Or am I
missing something? I do agree that we should try to keep things "small"
but 11% sounds like small fish compared to other savings that could be
made simply by cleaning up Squeak code...

Note: I am way out of my depths here - please feel free to correct me.

regards, Göran