Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!citcom!jack
From: jack@citcom.UUCP (Jack Waugh)
Newsgroups: comp.databases
Subject: Smalltalk VM viewed as a DBMS
Message-ID: <121@citcom.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 23-Nov-87 19:15:52 EST
Article-I.D.: citcom.121
Posted: Mon Nov 23 19:15:52 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 26-Nov-87 19:59:08 EST
Organization: Citcom Systems, Inc., Herndon, VA
Lines: 25

The programming language Smalltalk has been implemented with what
the associated jargon calls "object-oriented virtual memory".
Smalltalk is generally semi-interpreted.  The interpreter can
trap all dereferencing of object pointers and can call the
virtual memory implementation as needed.  The memory is permanent,
like a file system or a DBMS, in that it survives power-downs on
the computer.

Thus, as far as I can see, the type of "virtual memory" system
Smalltalk uses meets the definition of a DBMS.

Are there applications that traditionally use a traditional DBMS
that could as well or better use OOZE, LOOM, or another mechanism
designed originally to meet Smalltalk's needs?  Is there some reason
to expect that few or no such DBMS application needs exist, some way
that, say, relational or navigational DBMS would be generally
superior to LOOM or the like or could generally be expected to run
faster?

As a reference on OOZE (Object-oriented Zoned Environment) and the
problem from the Smalltalk direction, see the Byte special issue on
Smalltalk, April of some year.  For a description of LOOM (Large
Object-oriented Memory), see the "Bits of History, Words of Advice"
book out of Xerox PARC.  The title probably begins "The
Smalltalk-80 System;" or something like that.