Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!crash!pagesnf!kevin
From: kevin@pages.com (Kevin Sven Berg)
Subject: Re: Smalltalk bloat
Message-ID: <D4vypp.1HJ@pages.com>
Sender: kevin@pages.com (Kevin Sven Berg)
Organization: Pages Software Inc
References: <3j5npb$jpa@msunews.cl.msu.edu>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 1995 22:34:37 GMT
Lines: 35

In article <3j5npb$jpa@msunews.cl.msu.edu> dunham@cl-next4.cl.msu.edu (Steve  
Dunham) writes:
> This is why I don't use Smalltalk anymore.  I learned Smalltalk with
> Smalltalk/V 1.3 on a PC-clone.  It ran well in 1MB of RAM.  Now I find
> that I can't find a Smalltalk that will run on my Linux box with a
> `mere' 12MB of RAM.  My hopes are that Budd's new system will be
> useful, but currently it just seg-faults.  (Tried it on both
> little-endian (Linux) and big-endian (NeXTStep) machines.)
> 
> Does anyone have an explanation for the bloat of modern Smalltalk
> systems (which IMHO makes them useless for writing real applications).

On a related topic, I had been happily using ST/V 1.0 (!) as zippy tool
under Windows 3.1. I recently upgraded to VST Win32 and find the
environment to be a whooooooole lot slower :-(

The manual explains how to unbind libraries from the image, so I 
attempted to do so with PARTS. Only, there are references elsewhere
in the image which cause these to be autoloaded on startup (Arrrg!).

Q: How can I put this puppy on a permanent diet? I'd like a trim and
snappy Smalltalk again.

Kevin

p.s. I do admit that VST Win32 runs Ok on a Dell w/24mb, but I'd
like to run it in 8mb on my Compaq at home. Even so, it was a shock
to read the Digitalk notes on how much faster this version was
supposed to be, when their older code runs circles around the new !!!

-- 
--------------------------------------------------
Kevin Sven Berg       +      Kevin_Berg@pages.com 
Pages Software Inc.   +      http://www.pages.com/    
--------------------------------------------------
