tim Rowledge wrote:
>
> On 12-May-06, at 9:15 AM, Charles D Hixson wrote:
>
>> (Well,
>> compilation to C would be better, but I'm presuming that this is
>> impossible.)
>
> Why would compilation to C be better? You wouldn't gain any
> performance in any serious application. Consider a moment; to send
> messages you have to do certain work. If you compiled
> ...
> tim
> -- 
> tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
> Oxymorons: Soft rock

Compilation of Squeak to C would be better because there are well know
ways to distribute programs written in C to various different
platforms.  I understand that this probably wouldn't yield any
performance gain, that would require designing the program in the
language of implementation, and for that purpose I'd rather choose
something other than C.  D, perhaps, or even Eiffel.  The problem with
those is no graphic interface.  Ada is a possibility, and has a decent
connection to Gtk.  But Ada code is HUGE.

However, it has been said that my first qualm, that there isn't an easy
way to distribute a program after it's been written to a machine that
doesn't already have Squeak installed is false...in which case none of
these arguments apply.  (OTOH, I don't currently know them, so I have no
idea what the limitations of these methods are.  Presumably I'll run
across them before I need them.)