On Tue, 20 Aug 2002 17:29:58 GMT, Joel VanderWerf <vjoel / PATH.Berkeley.EDU> wrote: >Thaddeus L. Olczyk wrote: >> On Mon, 19 Aug 2002 18:20:14 GMT, Joel VanderWerf >> <vjoel / PATH.Berkeley.EDU> wrote: >> >> >>>Thaddeus L. Olczyk wrote: >>> >>> >>>>BTW I did not say it takes half an hour to start Ruby. I said it can >>>>take half an hour to start Ruby and get to the point where I left off. >>>>( Or to the last bug I fixed. ) >>> >>>This in itself doesn't convince me you need a core. If you keep program >>>state in persistable objects, you can just dump them. Of course if you >>>use singletons or dynamically generated procs, you will have some >>>difficulty.... >> >> And you think persistance is instantaneous? > >I guess that's just my perspective. For me, simulations can take hours >to evolve, but the objects can be persisted in seconds. I can imagine >otherwise, though. In simulations you have manymany objects which are constantly destroyed and created ( unless you recycle objects, but even then the recycling dominates ) that's in part why they take so long. Only a small percantage of the total objects in existance over the lifetime of a program need be persisted at any moment to restore the state. In most programs the lifetime of an object is a signifcant percentage ( at least 10% ) of the program as a result at any time a large percentage of total objects is present and need to be persisted. Therefore the persistence and especially the restore ( where the objects have to be recreated ) mechanisms take almost as long as the Method of "run till you get to the desired point".