Squeak vs. Python for this task on hand...

Lex Spoon lex at cc.gatech.edu
Mon Dec 15 19:15:51 UTC 2003



> > As such, I'm worried that Squeak's 'all-in-one'
> > image approach might not be the right way to approach generating these tools,
> > for I don't understand how one would make a stand-alone application using
> > Squeak.

Squeak is fine for standalone apps.  Most Squeak users simply do not
like standalone apps, it seems.

The main place that a standalone program makes sense for Squeak, is when
you give a program to someone else.  See this page for info on doing
that, but the short answer is that it works fine.

	"FAQ: Squeak Executables"
	http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/778

This page is quite messy, I'm afraid, but there's some gcood info if you
follow all the links.


>What you essentially do is to prepare an image with the classes/objects
> you need and then typically shrink it by throwing out stuff your app
> doesn't need. The last part makes it run in a smaller RAM size and I
> assume also loads a tad faster at startup.
> 

Shrinking actually seems optional to me.  I didn't do it in either of
the two Squeak programs I did deployments of: Julia Explorer and Hanoi. 
It saves a few megs, but it didn't seem worth my time.  The startup is
still as fast as anyone cares about.

So it seems more accurate to say that shrinking is an option.  If you
just want to get a program out the door then you probably won't bother
with it.



Lex



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list