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 <siguctua@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."