Dan,

> Fire up those new-age compilers and take us into the new world!

>	- D

	OTOH, I want to go back to the future to look for an old-age
compiler.

	The one that generated _the_very_first_Smalltalk_image.

	( The image that Adam used to show Eva her (e)toy :-).

	Just wondering if that compiler was written in C(obol) or
S(nobol).

	Don't I wish that it were written in S(lang) so that it could be
turned into a plugin ;-)

	The 30th Anniversary for Smalltalk is around the corner.

	Would you tell us how was _the_very_first_Smalltalk_image
created ?

	And who did it.

	Cheers,

	PhiHo.
 

-----Original Message-----
From: squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org
[mailto:squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Dan
Ingalls
Sent: Thursday, August 01, 2002 10:38 PM
To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
Subject: RE: Progrmaming in Bytecode?


> >   The single cycle
>>   thing isn't necessarily relevant for Smalltalk,  but those
"extended"
>>   bytecodes are really distasteful to me.
>
>I find them distasteful too.  I also find the multiple object header 
>formats equally distasteful.  OTOH, every little bit counts when trying

>to minimise the size of the image -- and there a more than a few people

>putting Squeak to work on severely limited machines.

Well, bytecodes do have their place, of course ;-).

But it's great to hear you guys finding the whole current mess
distasteful...