Re: VM images and working in the VM image

+1, great email.


>From: tim Rowledge <[email protected]>
>Reply-To: [email protected]
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: Re: VM images and working in the VM image
>Date: Sat, 12 May 2007 20:31:56 -0700
>
>
>
>On 12-May-07, at 5:47 PM, Ted Neward wrote:
>
> >
> > With all due respect, Tim, that's a lame answer.
>
>Begging your pardon but I most strongly disagree. 'Lame' would be
>simply saying "dimwit it d0nt w0rk dat way". I pointed to useful
>resources to help Richard understand; resources that would be
>pointless and time wasting simply to repeat. There is a *lot* that is
>different when upgrading from static languages to fully dynamic
>languages with fully dynamic integrated environments. Attempting to
>explain it in a few short phrases is surely foolish, certainly
>misleading and likely to mislead. Oddly enough I know this because I
>used to try it. Fortunately there is little chance of any
>embarrassing record of such doomed attempts on the net because I
>learned my lesson before it (the net) was commonly available.
>
> >
> > Case in point: ST's notion of the IDE-in-the-image is pretty lame when
> > looking to deploy an image within a "headless" environment. Is
> > there another
> > approach when trying to build a server? Surely when running
> > Seaside, for
> > example, I don't want or need the overhead of the IDE hanging
> > around.... It
> > might be useful in certain scenarios, but most of the time, it's
> > just going
> > to be useless overhead....
>
>Again, I disagree. The typical size of a Smalltalk image is so below
>the radar amongst today's bloated OSs and apps that I swear I've
>received word.doc containing emails that exceed a development image
>size. It was a problem in the early/mid 80s when 512Kb was a dream
>for wealthy users. It was an issue in the early 90's when corporate
>users worried about having to upgrade a thousand machines to a whole
>2Mb. It really isn't worth spending much breath on anymore. It
>*might* be a reasonable concern if one were involved in a project
>needing to actually download entire images frequently and the
>bandwidth was worrisome. There is considerable experiential value in
>having a usable debugging environment in a deployed image; much money
>has been saved.
>
>Smalltalk simply isn't a system that gets used in the same way as C/
>java/VB/whatever. Trying to warp it to use CVS etc and working in a
>write-in-emacs/load-code/compile-code/save-program manner will simply
>ruin the value and make you feel a fool. It is as pointless as
>demanding that Ferarri change to using a Ford cast iron engine, drum
>brakes, soften the suspension to suit American tastes and paint a
>starsky and hutch stripe down the side.
>
>And yes, this is an issue that drives me nuts. You wouldn't believe
>the number of times that we have had someone new to Smalltalk leap up
>and down and explain how we have to change to be just like VB/java/c+
>+/whatever the flavour of the month is or we're all doomed. I'm still
>making a decent living 25 years later.
>
>tim
>--
>tim Rowledge; [email protected]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
>A fool and his money are soon partying
>
>
>
>>

_________________________________________________________________
Like the way Microsoft Office Outlook works? You’ll love Windows Live 
Hotmail. 
http://imagine-windowslive.com/hotmail/?locale=en-us&ocid=TXT_TAGHM_migration_HM_mini_outlook_0507


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Strongtalk-general" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/strongtalk-general?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---