On Sun, 19 Aug 2001, PhiHo Hoang wrote:

> Bijan Parsia wrote:
> 
> > But there's something *golden* about having a 4 file install (vm, image,
> > sources, and changes). Wrestingly with VisualWorks packages and paths
[snip]
> > Anything that sends me scurrying to the filesystem makes me want to
> HOLLER!
> > (And not in joy :))
[snipped stuff not directly related to this point]

>     Here, here. If 4 file install is that good, I guess 3 file install is
> even better.

Not clearly.

> I heard that the image can be embedded in the VM.

Yes. And in spite of your sarcasm/reductio attempt (:)), it's been
*seriously argued* that the 4 file install is too much.

[snip]
> > I think this is on the side of the "casual hacker" person :) I'm fairly
> > sure all involved are with me, but I feel inclined to make noise about
> > this. The monolithic image has virtues and I'd rather not *lose* them, if
> > at all possible.
> 
>     If it is possible to embed a binary file (image) in another binary (VM)
> then it's no brainer (?) to embed the merged real source into that VM with
> embedded image (I think REBOL has about 2Meg. of source text in the
> Rebol.exe, VM + compressed text source about 500K). Voila, THE ULTIMATE
> really truly monolithic Squeak ;-)
> 
>     Any taker ?

Not me, but there have been many who've so argued :)

[snip]

One thing about the 4 files is that they *are* reasonable modular...I tend
to run multiple image/changes with 1 vm/sources, and several vms with 1
sources. So image+changes...that's definitely interesting, but not
critical imho :)

I *would* like smarter decompiling (i.e., storing variable names &
comments in the image), but that's a different issue.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.