Subjective Squeak
Stephen Pair
spair at acm.org
Wed Dec 11 19:29:47 UTC 2002
Anthony Hannan wrote:
> "Stephen Pair" <spair at acm.org> wrote:
> > But even the stack optimizations that are in VI4
> > concern me a bit. It seems like that goes too far into the
> research
> > realm and jeopardizes the acceptance of the work done on block
> > closures. Everyone knows what block closures are and why they are
> > needed; there is a much greater chance of them getting into
> the base
> > VM if they don't come with extra stuff that's less well
> understood and
> > proven.
>
> The stack issue will be worked out when considering a Jitter.
> But if we keep on resisting changes because they are not
> proven, we'll never make progress. Squeak is primarily a
> research project. We don't have any customers funding or
> donating to us. So lets take advantage of this freedom and
> really advance Squeak.
I agree, I don't mean to suggest that progress should stop. But there
are projects being done in Squeak where a more reserved approach to the
indroduction of research focused things is warranted. All I'm saying is
that I would *really* like block closures. And I think having block
closures stand on its own as a modification to Squeak is useful. That
way, it can be evaluated for adoption (by whomever wants it) on its own
merits.
- Stephen
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|