Whither Squeak?

Peter Crowther Peter at ozzard.org
Sat May 20 17:28:12 UTC 2006

> From: Torsten Sadowski
> ineffective is probably the wrong word. Wasteful is better.

In one sense, I agree with that: Microsoft's MFC libraries must be
copied billions of times around the world, and that's a lot of bits.  In
another sense, I don't: debugging time is expensive, and debugging time
replicated across tens of millions of computers with different
combinations of libraries (so that the same solution cannot be applied
to all) is therefore very expensive indeed.

> If 2 software
> packages need the same nonstandard base it is likely both would would
> bring a copy.

Yes, that's the idea.

> This is simple but wasteful and would not work for Squeak.

At present, it would not work for Squeak.  Maybe it 'should' in some
sense - this would require significant work unless the simplest possible
approach was taken of running each application in its own memory space.
That's the approach taken by most OSs of the last 30 years, now that the
hardware has memory management capabilities.  If we regard Squeak as an
OS-equivalent, maybe we should look at giving some inter-process or at
least inter-application protection.

		- Peter

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list