Sure!
But I understand what Bryce concerns.
Now if we would start to really benchmark central part of squeak I'm  
sure that we would get some surprises.

Stef


On 18 sept. 06, at 11:17, Klaus D. Witzel wrote:

> Hi Stef,
>
> on Mon, 18 Sep 2006 09:11:16 +0200, you wrote:
>> me too :)
>> I always have in mind the nice sentence of dan about the fact that  
>> someone alone could understand smalltalk
>
> Look into data centres where the big servers run applications or  
> look into offices where thousands of workstations run applications.
>
> If you can save them a significant portion of CPU time then you  
> save them $$$ investment, and perhaps win a contract against your  
> competitor.
>
> Also, look into complex applications which can neither be created  
> nor be maintained by a single person, or understood by a single  
> person.
>
> Why shouldn't Squeak become a #1 choice in such situations.
>
> I doubt that application developers want to understand the  
> internals of a VM or the internals of a library (Collections in our  
> case here, libc as an example in other cases), perhaps their boss  
> (the $$$ decision maker) also doesn't want that. I doubt because of  
> long time experience.
>
> Let's bring Squeak to the masses. Or, am I wrong with this? I run a  
> commercial business and want to base my success on Squeak. Anyone  
> out there telling me that I should not invest into Squeak, please  
> let me know, in squeak-dev or off-list. Thank you.
>
> Please don't misunderstand: I'm not asking that  
> primitiveApplyToFromTo must be in each and every VM. Neither do I  
> have something against the preferences of developers. But I want  
> freedom for making decisions.
>
> /Klaus
>
>> On 17 sept. 06, at 22:04, Bryce Kampjes wrote:
>>
>>> Personally, I'd prefer a library that I can easily understand  
>>> that is
>>> fast enough for 99% of it's uses. That for 1% of cases, I need to  
>>> use
>>> a custom solution is an acceptable trade off for understandability.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>