On Monday 08 July 2002 23:31, Ian Piumarta wrote:
> > A Jitter in Smalltalk would do the job.
>
> I think two jitters would be simpler (and do a much better job: the
> right tool at the right level of abstraction for the particular
> problem in hand).
>
> The first is just the regular Deutschian dynamic translation for
> Smalltalk (with tagged pointers, message sends, GC, and all the other
> stuff that makes the job tricky).  This one isn't very interesting in
> a MOP context.
>
> The second is intended only for MOP methods. [...]

I don't get it - why isn't full Smalltalk the right level of abstraction 
for MOP methods? Yes, it is extremely tricky to bootstrap. But having a 
full Jitter at hand I would use it for everything.

Of course, I am supposing we have Self-style optimizations such as 
inlining and customized compilation. If we don't then a Slang-like MOP 
compiler as you suggested is the only practical option. But look at all 
the excitement that the StrongTalk release has generated - surely any 
new design would include everything we have learned?

-- Jecel