Squat progress 8 June 2003
JohnMaloney at earthlink.net
Tue Jun 10 13:13:43 UTC 2003
At 2:12 PM -0400 6/9/03, Craig Latta wrote:
>> Do you think you'll be able to get a Squeak image below 100k as you were hoping?
> Yes, I do.
Excellent! I had thought that the current Squeak couldn't get that small. PocketSmalltalk
has a tiny image--under 25k, I think, or even less--but it uses a 16-bit object memory
and has a radically different representation for all the runtime structures such as
method dictionaries, compiled methods, globals, literals, etc. Of course, it doesn't scale
up to large numbers of objects as Squeak does. Still, I'm pretty sure that there is a
point in scaling down where the current Squeak VM design is sub-optimal...
At 2:31 PM -0400 6/9/03, PhiHo Hoang wrote:
>> My record for a tiny Squeak image that does something useful
>> is one that does "toothpaste" in 172k.
> What version of Squeak was it (2.x, 3.x ?)
I started from 2.3. (This was a few years ago.)
> Is it available for download ?
> I like to do some ImageProcessing on it. ;-)
No, but I can email it to you if you'd like. (Send me a private email if you
>> That image still has the bare essentials of graphics (Form Pen BitBlt)
>> and the UI (Display & InputSensor).
>> My record for an application without graphics is 136k (~1000 methods)
>> for an image that merely dumps memory stats to a file
>> (no compiler, no graphics).
>> But I don't count that as a useful application...
> If my math is not so rusted, the graphics engine is less than 36KB ?
> Is it morphic ?
The difference in size was for all the classes such a Form, Pen, BitBlt, StrikeFont,
etc. 36k seems about right to me.
More information about the Squeak-dev