Despite all the hype about the self compiler it actually runs like
a total dog (Self 4.1 on the Mac anyway).
It has to be ten times slower than Squeak and is too slow to be useful.
(Which is a shame)


On Sunday, January 20, 2002, at 03:02 PM, Editor - Squeak News wrote:

> I guess one of the most qualified persons to answer your question is 
> John
> Maloney and we discussed this in detail in an interview we made with 
> him.
> You can read the relevant parts of this interview in the August issue of
> Squeak News which you can download from
> http://www.squeaknews.com/download/index.html. Unfortunately currently 
> the
> only way to read the interview is to download the whole issue although 
> we
> are trying to address this. I believe you can find an answer to your
> question in that article.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Tansel
>
> There is a lenghty discussion of possible answer to your question in
>
>> I have a question about Self that I have anxious to post to the Squeak
> mailing list
>> (because I know there are people here with the right experience to 
>> answer
> it). I've
>> been wondering: what is wrong with Self? Why hasn't it taken over the
> world? :)
>>
>> In many ways, Self seems like an improvement over Smalltalk, and I get 
>> the
> impression
>> that the "Programming as Experience" inspiration for Self has a lot to 
>> do
> with the
>> direction Squeak is headed. But, other than Morphic and "HotSpot(tm)", 
>> it
> looks like
>> many of the Self concepts have been ignored. Is it because it turns 
>> out to
> be hard to
>> organize a big system without classes? Is it because implementations 
>> exist
> for only a
>> few types of computers, so many people have never experienced it? Or is
> there
>> something else?
>>
>> Ted
>>
>>
>
>