The story about Smalltalk-72 is in "The Early History of Smalltalk" 
that I wrote for ACM's "History of Programming Languages" in 93. I 
have a pdf file which I'll put on an FTP server somewhere. Also, Dan 
wrote a truly great paper a few years after Smalltalk-72 about 
Smalltalk-76, a little of which I included in the "History". However, 
you should read this as well. I think it was for POPL 78, and there 
is probably an online copy somewhere ....

Cheers,

Alan

At 1:21 AM -0400 8/2/02, PhiHo Hoang wrote:
>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...


--