Of course, now that Macs are based on Intel as well - this should  
make the whole thing lots easier - just support intel.

On May 18, 2006, at 5:50 AM, Sebastián Sastre wrote:

> Dear Goran,
>
> 	I'd love to see Exupery reach it's objetives and run squeak for
> Windows (as I guess other would love to see it in Mac). Is a good  
> project
> Squeak have. I'm favorable in all means to the improvements  
> exupery's is
> trying to bring. I think is all "profit" for us all.
>
> 	cheers,
>
> Sebastian
>
>> -----Mensaje original-----
>> De: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org
>> [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] En
>> nombre de goran at krampe.se
>> Enviado el: Jueves, 18 de Mayo de 2006 05:56
>> Para: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
>> Asunto: Re: Technology of the technologies (WAS: A Lisper
>> asks,"Am I supposed to like Smalltalk?")
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> Hans-Martin Mosner <hmm at heeg.de> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> And so what do you guys think of Exupery? I had the distinct
>> impression that Exupery is exactly this (a sophisticated
>> machine code compiler for
>> Smalltalk) - and as long as Exupery can mop the floor with
>> the regular VM performance wise - then why would it be "not
>> really a good way"?
>>
>> If the reader don't know what Exupery is then look at the
>> movie or read the handout:
>>
>> 	http://goran.krampe.se/blog/Squeak/ExuperyTalk2006.rdoc
>> 		
>>
>> regards, Göran
>>
>
>