On 29 Apr 2010, at 14:10, Alex Schenkman wrote: > Thanks for a great answer. > > So, for question 1, the overhead is not really big.
Well, 'big' is relative. It's a fair bit bigger than well-written C, it's a lot lower than something like Ruby or Python. > For question 2: > What I don't get is where is the Smalltalk image? There isn't one. > The traditional way of coding in Smalltalk is towards a live system. Yup. This is implemented in CodeMonkey, but as a development tool only. You can write code in CodeMonkey, have it JIT-compiled in the background, and then interact with the classes that you've just written. Alternatively, you can use your favourite text editor and write the source code into files, in a way similar to GNU Smalltalk, or a traditional file-based language. > In your description, the result is like any compiled language, right? The result is a binary executable, or a set of source files that can be JIT compiled, interpreted, or edited. > In that case, much of the beauty of Smalltalk disapears. The beauty being the ability to make a typo, corrupt your entire image, and have to restore from an old backup? Yup, that's gone. The ability to modify running programs is still there, as is the ability to do interactive development. If you saw Nicolas' talk at FOSDEM this year, he showed CodeMonkey handling persistent undo, automatic versioning, and so on. Eventually CodeMonkey is going to disappear as a stand-alone app and be merged into EtoileBehavior, so you can just pop up the class browser and code editor in any running app and modify it. Most of the infrastructure for this is already present, it just needs Nicolas to get around to it. David _______________________________________________ Etoile-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/etoile-discuss
