> reason I mention it here is the idea that you can run Dylan in two modes:
> a dynamic, interactive, prototyping mode for development, and an
> efficiently compiled, static mode for delivery.  Now for the $400,000
> question:  how difficult would it be to add that sort of capability to
> Squeak?  :)

I forgot to tell than a requirement for an efficient, compact and safe
(meaning that every message will be understood) application is to work
under a 'closed world' assumption.

This means that you have to fix the classes and methods to be analyzed.
This is a trade-off... If you want flexibility use late-binding, if you
want efficiency use static-binding.

I don't know how Squeak applications will be distributed in the future. If
we take the current approach of 'closed' programs, then we are in the right
direction. If we think that distributed applications could be opened and
extended, then we will have to live with late-binding and think of some
other way to gain efficiency (Type Feedback perhaphs...).

Regards,

Francisco (Pancho) Garau
Ph: (5411) 4319-6213. Fax: (5411) 4319-6422
garau at ar.ibm.com (work) - - - fgarau at bigfoot.com (home)