Re: Status of Strongtalk C++ code: VM stability and progress on a graphical debugger

FWIW although I toy with the idea of multi-threading the VM
occasionally I tend to agree that this should not be a particularly
high priority. I agree with Gilad that stability ought to be our first
goal.

Personally, I am doing my best to focus on stability issues, and have
fixed a couple of issues related to scavenging and garbage collection,
with particular reference to optimized builds and initially focusing
on running with the original compiler. I haven't tried to look at the
new backend yet, since as far as I understand the new backend is not
yet complete and I figure it will be more productive to stabilise the
original compiler first. Progress is slow, because my time is limited,
it sometimes seems like no-one else is involved, there is limited
documentation and no tests (for the VM at least). Now I'm not a VM
expert, so I'm sure that holds me back as well, but I got involved
because I was interested and am making progress, albeit slowly.

So, consider this a call to arms. If you are interested in Strongtalk,
and you want to make it better, please start using it, and let the
group know of your experiences. If things don't work, please raise
issues on the issue database. Please write tests in Smalltalk or C++,
depending on the nature of the issue, to illustrate the problem.
Please provide fixes for them if you can. If something you need is
missing, please consider adding it. If others are out there working on
Strongtalk, either on the VM or on the image, please let us know what
you are doing. If you get stuck post something on the group. It would
be great to know that others out there are actually trying to use
Strongtalk.

If Strongtalk is to move forward we need more people to get actively
involved rather than just tentatively kicking the tyres and then
backing off. That's not meant as a criticism; it can certainly seem
daunting to start with. Very little documentation and a whole lot of C+
+ code to read. Especially if like most of us you are probably a
Smalltalker rather than a VM whiz (and there aren't many of those
about after all).

I know Gilad has said that he can't justify devoting resources to VM
hacking, and I can understand that, but how stable do you need the VM
to be before you would consider using it as a base? What tools support
would you require? For example, would you need an interactive debugger
before you would consider using it? Equally are there any areas that
are particularly unimportant? Please consider what you can actively
contribute to the improvement of Strongtalk. Even if that doesn't
include fixing issues with the VM, identifying the areas that cause
problems that prevent you from using Strongtalk as a base would help.

To reiterate, if you want a better, more robust Strongtalk, get
involved. It won't happen unless more people start to contribute.

Regards, Steve

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---