[squeak-dev] re: The solution of
K. K. Subramaniam
subbukk at gmail.com
Mon Aug 11 16:29:45 UTC 2008
On Sunday 10 Aug 2008 2:02:53 pm Craig Latta wrote:
> I happen to be interested in creating object memories which are
> self-sustaining (growable), rather than one-off object memories suitable
> only for specific predetermined tasks. So the real question for me is:
> for an object memory which is self-sustaining after creation, where is
> the optimal compromise between "primal" (small) and useful? I don't
> think anyone has ever answered that question before, not at PARC and not
> since.
I like Spoon's minimalist approach. To me, a primal machine (VM+image) is not
necessarily the smallest machine. It is the smallest that has enough objects
to create a better machine. If the knowledge about creating a primal image
can be encoded in the VM itself, then when squeak is started without an
image, a primal image can be generated on the fly and the programmer can
build a better image.
An analogy is http://www.annexia.org/forth that shows how to bootstrap a
FORTH "machine" starting with a simple (physical) machine with very few
primitives (not even a GC) in about 2000 lines. It is written in x86 assembly
but is small enough for a single programmer to comprehend. Anyone who wishes
to bootstrap a FORTH environment can read it, understand it, port it to a
target machine and build better FORTH environments (including a GC memory
allocator).
Subbu
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|