Exupery (was Re: [IDEAS] Looking at Factor)

bryce at kampjes.demon.co.uk bryce at kampjes.demon.co.uk
Mon Oct 2 22:34:45 UTC 2006


J J writes:
 > Any guess when 1.0 will be finished?  Are you the only person working on 
 > this?

I've been saying about a year, so I'd guess 1.0 by next
summer. However that depends on what ends up going into 1.0 and how
busy I am over the next year.

I'm the main person working on it. There's been about 5 other
contributors so far including Andy and Patrick who did the Windows and
Solaris x86 ports.
 
 > Also, just to make sure I understand:  I came from a C++ background, and 
 > when I hear "inlining" I think of C++ inline (when ever you see this 
 > "function" replace it, at the call site, with the body of the "function").  
 > I assume you mean the same thing in smalltalk?  It does look like smalltalk 
 > could make some huge gains from such inlining since so much of the code just 
 > calls other methods with slightly different arguments.

Inlining means the same thing except driven automatically by profiling
rather than an "inline" keyword. In this case read the work done by
Urs Holzle for Self to get a feeling for the specifics. 

Exupery will also dynamically decompile when nessisary. This is to
allow seemless debugging and meta-programming. Exupery already
dynamically decompiles methods when it clears it's code cache or
on image saves.

Inlining is planned as the 2.0 feature. Yes, it's important, keeping
it out of 1.0 is a way to reduce scope creep in 1.0.

Bryce



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list