Hi, Igor, please get this point of view out of your system :).
First, not all programming languages are like this: You can easily run other VMs (e.g., Java) with more than 3 GB. But, let's not even go there: I can run Pharo with 1Gb on Mac without problems. According to your reasoning we might end up downgrading the Mac VM. Some data does not fit in memory, but if I can get all my data in my image, I will choose to do it. I am not saying that we should compare with Java, or that it is the end of the world that the Windows VM is highly restricted. I am simply saying that we should not dismiss this as a problem just because we do not know how, or do not have the resources to solve it right now. After all, we are here to change the world :). Cheers, Doru On Jul 8, 2013, at 4:50 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguc...@gmail.com> wrote: > Same question again. And same answer (i have no other yet). > > Why just don't use disk memory? > I know it is extra effort, but that's what all software does, when it has to > deal with big amounts of data. > Why in smalltalk it should be different? > > Of course, on your place, i would also prefer that there is some magic fairy > waves its magic wand and problem solved, but it is not going to be solved. > If today you need >512Mb for your data, tomorrow you will need twice as much, > and after tomorrow it will double again. > So, let us be realistic: the solution to your problem lies not in VM, but in > a way how to manage the data. > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. -- www.tudorgirba.com "Sometimes the best solution is not the best solution."
