> Am 07.02.2015 um 16:18 schrieb David T. Lewis <lewis@mail.msen.com>:

>
> On Thu, Feb 05, 2015 at 01:54:51PM +0100, Marcus Denker wrote:
>>
>>> On 05 Feb 2015, at 10:12, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 05 Feb 2015, at 10:04, Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
>>>
>>> Another way to see it: How would the original Smalltalk be designed if they would have had 4GB RAM in 1978?
>>>
>>> What fascinates me still is that Smalltalk used the existing resources (even building their own machines) to an
>>> extreme, while today we are obsessed to find reasons why we can not do anything that makes the system
>>> slower or use more memory than yesterday. And that even with resources growing every year???
>>>
>>> This is why we e.g. now have a meta object describing every instance variable in Pharo. I am sure there are people
>>> who will see these ~7000 objects as pure waste??? while I would say that we have already *now* the resources to be
>>> even more radical.
>>>
>>
>> Seemingly I still can not explain what I mean in away that people get it, so please just ignore this mail.
>>
>>�� �� �� Marcus
>>
>
> Your point makes good sense to me. In 1978, a system in which a low-level
> integer was represented as an object with behavior would have been perceived
> as a rediculously wasteful idea. And can you imagine someone seriously
> suggesting something so wasteful as automatic memory management?
>
> So if the "same" system was being designed today, it might very well include
> new concepts that today are perceived as wasteful. Some of those concepts
> might turn out to be very good thing once we get used to them.

The times have changed. Today waste seems to be a requirement.
Whatever application you have - reimplement it using ���web technologies���.
Whatever data you have - store it in ���the cloud��� and tunnel its transportation over port 80,
gain extra points for using XML here.

Today, beautiful small things like Smalltalk are ignored by the masses and being laughed at.

Andreas