>Peter Deutsch stated that dynamic compilation of bytecodes to
> machine language is actually faster than paging pre-compiled machine
> code into memory.

Then th eproblem is when to throw it away...
Can anyone give more information on this?
Any statistics or any other valuable information?

Ale.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hans-Martin Mosner" <hmm at heeg.de>
To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list"
<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2006 1:17 AM
Subject: Re: Technology of the technologies (WAS: A Lisper asks, "Am I
supposed to like Smalltalk?")


> tim Rowledge wrote:
>
> >
> > Compiling straight to machine code is certainly doable; it simply
> > involves a lot more work since you have to develop and optimise and
> > debug a *lot* more stuff. For example, you'd have to rewrite the
> > compiler, the debugger, the InstructionStream related classes and
> > tools, any system that expects to write out methods, etc etc. Send
> > enough money and I will arrange it for you. Discussions could start
> > at, ooh, One *Million* Euros.
>
> Doable, but not really a good way to implement Smalltalk.
> You'd lose the binary portability and in turn gain a lot of weight,
> since bytecodes are so much more compact than machine language.
> IIRC, Peter Deutsch stated that dynamic compilation of bytecodes to
> machine language is actually faster than paging pre-compiled machine
> code into memory.
>
> Cheers,
> Hans-Martin
>
> P.S.: Tim certainly knows that, but he'd use every trick he can pull to
> get at One Million Euros for doing something Smalltalk-related :-)
> P.P.S.: If you have One Million Euros to spend on something
> Smalltalk-related, *do* give it to Tim. You won't be disappointed.
>