Still about methodClass [was: Condensed Sources vs. Squeak
Maintainence]
stéphane ducasse
ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Wed Jul 26 10:07:09 UTC 2006
> Actually, if you want my attention, talk about the new source code
> subsystem ;-)
>
> The method properties discussion is a red herring in my eyes - we
> have a functioning version today and if that needs changing or not
> is in the eye of the beholder. Personally (having done it both
> ways) I strongly prefer the current solution since it has some nice
> properties (like that all relevant attributes are reachable via
> direct references from the method and therefore garbage collection
> will do The Right Thing without additional help; that a generic
> copying mechanism doesn't have to know that some vital parts of
> compiled methods are stored elsewhere; that extensions can be done
> in one place rather than many) but things can certainly be done
> differently. Discussing those merits would require some more data
> points other than saying "yes, it can be done" (because I know it
> can, I have done it before ;-) and would likely mean some fairly
> subjective comparisons of what is "nicer" or "more understandable"
> or somesuch.
>
> In light of that, I'd rather discuss an area that actually needs
> fixing, like the source code subsystem.
me too ;)
I would really like to understand/learn the problem of having a more
parcel like system for squeak (ie having source and image (bytecode +
object) chunk as a delivery system)
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|