Hi Giovanni,
on Wed, 15 Nov 2006 22:59:25 +0100, you wrote:
I completly lost that news and I'd like to interview someone...perhaps you?
No, better interview Gilad Bracha. Some questions arise naturally out of his post
- http://groups.google.com/group/strongtalk-general/browse_thread/thread/27ace...
- what's the big difference between Strongtalk VM and Java VM - how could all these OO VMs (incl. the other ones he mentions) become one excellent base with specialization according to the respective language's needs - will his Invokedynamic operator revolutionize the static arena by allowing dynamic types - is hotswapping necessary for production or for development or both
- more is possible, but the above already makes a long one, IMO
I am away this week but I will be back at Monday night
And I'm moving abroad Thursday morning 07:00 (that's today :) ...
so...if you have some throughts please share it with the news mailing list and then we can set up a couple of questions for Ingalls too ;)
Yes please, ask Dan after the interview with Gilad.
/Klaus
On 15/nov/06, at 13:09, Klaus D. Witzel wrote:
Hi list,
looks like there's not the hoped-for response and enthusiasm for defining an unofficial Smalltalk-2007 specification as a base for all the Smalltalk(-ish) VM's.
But perhaps it's too early to say such (hopefully).
Nevertheless, it may be worth a headline, "Unofficial Smalltalk-2007 specification?" :)
/Klaus
---- Forwarded Usenet-message ---- From: "Alex Perez" aperez@alexperez.com Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.smalltalk.exupery Subject: Re: Common Smalltalk VM Summit Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 12:00:02 +0100 URL: news://455AF332.8080200@alexperez.com
David Griswold wrote:
Hi everybody, Dan Ingalls and I have been talking, trying to figure out what to do about the major opportunity offered by the recent release of the Strongtalk virtual machine as open source.
It seems you've come up with an excellent plan of attack, and I'm glad to see people really trying to make this happen. I had the thought independently less than a week ago, after evaluating a dozen Smalltalk VM's for a potential commercial project.
Rather than keep this discussion to ourselves, our thinking was that this would be the perfect time to call a kind of summit, with representatives of all the major Smalltalk implementations, both open-source and commercial. The topic: what if we could build a shared high-performance open-source platform suitable for hosting a number of different Smalltalk systems, one that we can all share and work on together?
It sounds like a worthy goal, and I'm surprised nobody else has responded to this message. This sounds like a great first step, although I had also had the thought that *maybe* it would be possible to get an unofficial Smalltalk-2007 specification, which would be a very clear unofficial (but community-supported, since all interested parties would have a stake and hand in writing the specification) revision to the de-facto Smalltalk-80 standard and/or ANSI Smalltalk standard.
While the details of the type-feedback techniques used in the Strongtalk VM are arcane, the benefits are not: *much* higher performance for general Smalltalk code. Dan, myself, and many others who know about type- feedback and the pioneering Self system, have been dreaming for many years about the possibility that someday this technology might make it into mainstream Smalltalk VMs. It would take Smalltalk performance to a whole new level.
Which I'd love to see. On a somewhat-related but tangential note, has anybody done any experimental porting of Exupery to ARM (ARM11, specifically) CPUs?
That someday is here now, if the different factions within the Smalltalk community can pull together a little bit so that we don't miss this opportunity.
As a developer interested in using Smalltalk in a commercial product, this would be greatly beneficial to not only myself, but surely many others as well.
There may be debate within the community about some aspects of the Strongtalk project, for example the type system, but we should all be able to agree on the simple idea that a whole lot more performance would be a Good Thing. Now a huge performance gift has suddenly shown up on our doorstep. The last thing Smalltalk needs is another incompatible implementation. The splintering of Smalltalk implementations has dispersed the huge amount of talent and effort needed to build, port, maintain, and extend a really good virtual-machine. Alone, this is a problem for each of us. Together, a really good, super-fast type-feedback VM is for the first time within reach.
Agreed! And the BSD license is quite permissive and flexible, to boot.
I would like to invite the smart people out there who know and care most about the various Smalltalk virtual machines, to join Dan and I in a fairly focused discussion about this starting tomorrow (Thursday, PST) on the Strongtalk discussion group, at http://groups.google.com/group/strongtalk-general. I will be out of the country for 6 weeks starting Wed the 11th, so I would like to propose that we try to go back and forth about this a few times by the end of Friday, so we can think about this over the weekend, and maybe come up with a proposed general course of action by the middle of next week, so we all have something to think about until my return.
I'm looking forward to it.
Let's not lose this opportunity. Cheers, Dave
News mailing list News@lists.squeakfoundation.org http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/news