Karl Goiser <kgoiser at bigpond.net.au> wrote:
	Speaking about compilers and the like, I was wondering if Squeak 
	would benefit from being run on a Java VM?
	
No.  The JVM is very explicitly designed for a language which is
not "Objects all the way down".  That is, it relies heavily on numbers
_not_ being objects.  Lisp and Scheme people have noticed the same
problem.

	The positives I can see are that they are already installed on heaps 
	of machines,

>From what I've gathered in this list, Squeak is already on more.

	they have JIT's and the like, it allows people to 
	concentrate on other areas of interest.  I am sure there are a lot 
	more...
	
Note that there is already a Smalltalk-on-JVM for those who want it.

	The negatives are: if you don't have a JVM for your platform, you're 
	out of luck and we wouldn't be able to fiddle with the VM.  Also, is 
	there some heresy here?
	
There's a non-sequitur there.  Intel have an Open Source JVM implementation
(http://www.intel.com/research/mrl/orp); it should not be impossible to
adapt that to other architectures, and then we'd have a JVM we could fiddle
with.

The only thing we'd gain is (SOMETIMES) a JIT, but it is far from clear
that the speedup would compensate for the slowdown due to the architectural
mismatch.

The really obvious thing is that Squeakers are ALREADY "concentrat[ing]
on other areas of interest"; you don't find thousands beavering away on
the Squeak Jitter.