Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!news.tamu.edu!news.utdallas.edu!corpgate!bcarh8ac.bnr.ca!bcarh189.bnr.ca!nott!cunews!dbuck
From: dbuck@superior.carleton.ca (Dave Buck)
Subject: Re: Future of 16-bit and 32-bit Smalltak/V's?
Message-ID: <CwJvnC.B4D@cunews.carleton.ca>
Sender: news@cunews.carleton.ca (News Administrator)
Organization: Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada
References: <m0qnpV9-000BqGC@nextsrv1.andi.org> <Pine.3.89.9409221227.E14358-0100000@mercury.interpath.net> <tms-220994132918@stambaugh.tiac.net>
Date: Thu, 22 Sep 1994 21:28:24 GMT
Lines: 28

In article <tms-220994132918@stambaugh.tiac.net>,
Tom Stambaugh <tms@stambaugh.com> wrote:
>For what its worth, VisualAge and IBM Smalltalk are both full-function,
>32-bit Smalltalk environments that include powerful packaging tools.
>
>I've heard claims of VisualAge apps being shrunk to under 2MB. Don't know
>if thats true or not, but certainly you can do better than with current
>V/Win32 tools.
>
>Thx
><Tom S>

This may be true, but VisualAge and IBM Smalltalk don't perform
dynamic compilation, so comparing the memory requirements is like
comparing apples to oranges.


David Buck
dbuck@ccs.carleton.ca

_________________________________
| David K. Buck                 |
| dbuck@ccs.carleton.ca         |
| The Object People             |
|_______________________________|
 


