On 1 August 2013 14:45, Jecel Assumpcao Jr. <jecel at merlintec.com> wrote:
> Frank Shearar wrote:
>
>> I'm prepared to be argued over to agreeing with you, which means that
>> at the moment I don't :). The reason is that I don't see a car factory
>> inside my car: the car factory assembles a bunch of bits and gives me
>> a car. (This is one of the things that annoys me about Metacello: I
>> don't want to see ConfigurationOfs in my image.)
>
> But there is a bacteria factory inside a bacteria :-)
>
> That doesn't mean that I don't prefer Smalltalks that grow (like
> Smalltalk Express, a.k.a. Smalltalk V/Win) to those you have to strip.
>
>> Stripping is _hard_. Just look at all the Self literature. (My brief
>> Googling has failed me, but I did read an interesting approach in
>> connection with abstract interpretation.) Well. It's very easy to
>> remove things from an image. The problem is removing only the bad bits
>> and leaving the good bits.
>
> The automatic approach was based on type inference rather than abstract
> interpretation:
>
> http://selflanguage.org/documentation/published/gold.html
> "Sifting Out the Gold: Delivering Compact Applications From an
> Exploratory Object-Oriented Environment"
> Ole Agesen and David Ungar

Yes! That's the one!

frank

> There is also David Ungar's work on the Transporter where users have to
> manually annotate objects so they can be moved between images. This can
> be combined with the fact that the Self VM can start with a very minimal
> "empty world" and bootstrap from a bunch of text files (the text to
> bytecodes compiler is in the VM instead of the image) to deliver a
> stripped down system with just the application. But I think that the
> automatic solution in the above paper is more interesting for this
> discussion.
>
> -- Jecel
>
>