Technology of the technologies (WAS: A Lisper asks,
"Am I supposed to like Smalltalk?")
bryce at kampjes.demon.co.uk
Thu May 18 19:26:09 UTC 2006
Hans-Martin Mosner writes:
> 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.
Today, I'd suspect that the time to fetch code from main memory will
change the dynamic. It's possible that bytecode is the fastest
technology for code that's not run frequently. If you combine bytecode
execution with aggressively optimised machine code for many programs
we may have the ideal solution. Exupery is designed to provide the
aggressively optimised machine code.
> 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.
I could do something interesting with Exupery for a mere 100K Euros or
so. Anything less isn't enough to give up the day job for a year or
so. More money would of course buy more features and a larger
More information about the Squeak-dev