MC in basic
lattam at mac.com
Mon Dec 13 22:14:50 UTC 2004
Pardon my ignorance. Is the "new" compiler a better Smalltalk to
bytecode compiler, or a bytecode to binary compiler? It is not clear
from earlier posts I have access to.
On Dec 13, 2004, at 1:40 PM, stéphane ducasse wrote:
>> Yes, that's exactly right. And by the same logic, I would now have no
>> problem having VMMaker etc in basic either, since they are now (post
>> 3.5) well packaged too - as I said, I don't *care* what's in basic and
>> what isn't as long as I can trivially unload some of it. Or what's
>> not in it, since I can trivially load what I need.
> For traits we would like to use OB because the old browser is hell.
> And managing the new compiler as a package would be much easier for
> This has also the nice effect that we could even produce an image
> without the compiler.
> Cool ;) but this is for mini-image people.
> So we would like to have MC to be able for us to go fast.
More information about the Squeak-dev