scheduling squat (was "draft rough plan for 3.6")

Andreas Raab andreas.raab at
Tue Apr 15 00:31:53 UTC 2003

Hi Craig,

Thanks for the info.

> > Are you looking into building VMs with minimal footprint too? I'm
> > wondering what the smallest system might be that could run this
> > image...
> 	Yes, exactly. :)  I want to end up with a system that I 
> launch via "relief" (the little 25k webpage I wrote that
> automatically downloads and runs a Squeak system when you
> visit it). I was assuming I'd just use PhiHo Hoang's
> "MobVM" for the initial demos, but I'd like to check out
> what he's done in detail to ensure that it's minimal.
> 	MobVM currently uses 25k and downloads another 389k in 
> order to run Alejandro's "3 + 4" snapshot.

That sounds pretty big for my taste. I was actually hoping that it would be
possible to set up a VM in the <80k range for the "basics" of it. E.g., what
I'd really like to see is the size of a VM that has the interpreter plus
files plus essential socket support (maybe not even files ;-) Basically, I
am wondering if it's possible to build a "useful system" in <150k by using
what's there and not applying any "special hacks" (such as not inlining the
generated code etc).

> I think it's swapping in a bunch of
> graphics stuff that isn't stricly necessary, though. My rough guess is
> that the total minimal footprint could be about 100k for the snapshot
> and another 100k for the virtual machine, perhaps smaller on both
> counts.

I'd like to see the "perhaps smaller" part happening ;-)

> 	That should be plenty small for doing little scripting 
> things, website replacements, etc. It'll be fun, anyway. :)


  - Andreas

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list