Re: Wiki Up

I think we're losing track of the context which is what is the most
expedient way to port Squeak to the Strongtalk VM.

I guess the best way to do this should be left to experienced Squeakers.

I believe that the Strongtalk VM has a GC that compacts, and compacting will
break most C plug-ins.  Besides that, Squeak's C VM was designed to be
portable, but I don't think the system was designed to allow low level
changes, so when you change out the VM you perhaps you're going to lose all
the low level interfaces and C plug-ins.

If Strongtalk supports multiple processors some time in the future, that too
will break existing C plug-ins.

Joshua Scholar
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "stephane ducasse" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: Wiki Up


>
> I suggest you to read the 1997 OOPSLA paper by dan ingalls. Because
> it could help you to revise your statement. Debugging a VM within
> Smalltalk is one of the most precious thing to my eyes.
>
> On 4 mai 07, at 06:05, Cafe Alpha wrote:
>
> > I don't think there's any loveliness to Squeak's VM having been
> > written in Smalltalk.  It was a simple hack that was worth very
> > little.  Basically they worked out a very very limited subset of
> > Smalltalk that has C semantics and can be translated to C with a
> > very simple script.  And they did this only because they liked the
> > Smalltalk environment for debugging.
> >
>
>
> >


--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Strongtalk-general" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/strongtalk-general?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---