Newsgroups: comp.lang.smalltalk
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!swrinde!howland.reston.ans.net!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.dacom.co.kr!news.uoregon.edu!cs.uoregon.edu!reuter.cse.ogi.edu!qiclab.scn.rain.com!slc.com!servio!servio!aland
From: aland@servio.slc.com (Alan Darlington)
Subject: Can Smalltalk get smaller?  (was Re: Advantages of Smalltalk over 
Message-ID: <1996Feb26.220038.26236@slc.com>
Sender: news@slc.com (USENET News)
Nntp-Posting-Host: servio
Organization: GemStone Systems, Inc., Beaverton OR, USA
References: <4gf9op$b79@watnews2.watson.ibm.com> <4gfrom$ce4@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 1996 22:00:38 GMT
Lines: 11

davidsutra@aol.com (DavidSutra) writes:
> <snip> Small is beautiful.  <snip> Smalltalk is perfect for Avatars, etc.
> but it's too fat. It's that simple. What we need (instead of Java) is a
> better, faster, *smaller*, version of Smalltalk....

As far as I can tell, the only way to get a significantly smaller
memory footprint is to get rid of existing features.  Which ones
do you propose to eliminate?  (Hope you are flame-proof!!  :-)

  Cheers,
  Alan
