Saving morphs to file
Andreas Raab
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Tue Jul 18 09:22:39 UTC 2006
Marcus Denker wrote:
>> I'm actually slightly relieved because it means I didn't miss anything
>> stupidly simple ;-) I spent a *lot* of brainpower on this problem in
>> particular and I found it to be a really hard one.
>
> The solution would be, of course, to not use offsets for instvar access
> in the bytecode... the binding name->offset happens far too early.
So what are practical alternatives? And how do they compare to what we
have today in terms of compactness, speed, and interpretation overhead?
> For everything but interpretation, bytecode sucks.
Perhaps so (in a serious discussion I'd have to disagree; I think there
are various good reasons for bytecodes). But isn't interpretation what
most of us care about most of the time?
Cheers,
- Andreas
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|