Re: Digital Twin applied to Software

As said, there is no formal mapping. 

One could enforce a common denominator (design patterns) at both ends, like shared pointers for all objects, only virtual methods at the C++ end and strong typing at the Smalltalk end. In reality it get's a lot more complex than that (need for class-side virtual methods, reflection).

That would rob each side of its unique advantages. You would get something a C++ compiler can compile, but not C++. Not much would be left of the performance gain. 

The new Smalltalk compiler would have to deal with strong typing and the exceptions and dependency management it implies. It'd be a new language.

Porting Smalltalk to C++ involves a lot of deep thought and manual work that can be assisted by tools only to some extent. Porting C++ to Smalltalk is even more daunting (almost impossible, I would say) except for simple classes and domains.

Another approach is to embedd a Smalltalk interpreter or VM into a C++ application. That way you get a solid foundation with dynamic extensibility. Should work fine for CAD.

Andre

--

> On 7. Nov 2022, at 03:57, Aik-Siong Koh <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Andre:
> 
> You understand my Digital Twin idea perfectly. Your statement sums it all:
> "The ideal case for using both languages together might be to explore uncharted terrain with Smalltalk and port to C++ after a sound architecture has settled."
> 
> Anyone doing this systematically? How to promote Digital Twin? How to turn this Smalltalk advantage into a business?
> 
> I am applying idea to Pharo and OpenCascade to create Digital Twins of CAD software. Any feedback or interest would be greatly appreciated.
> 
> All the best,
> Aik-Siong
>