Common Smalltalk VM Summit
stephane ducasse
stephane.ducasse at gmail.com
Thu Oct 5 17:52:39 UTC 2006
this sounds really an excellent idea. I hope that forces will be
joining.
On 5 oct. 06, at 18:13, David Griswold wrote:
> Ok everybody,
>
> Hopefully the right people are listening in so that we can have a real
> dialog between the different Smalltalk implementations.
>
> Basically what I am proposing is that we try to join efforts to
> support an
> open source high-performance VM that we could all then use however
> we want.
> No one Smalltalk faction could do this before, because building a
> type-feedback VM from the ground up is just too big a job for a
> small group
> of volunteers, especially if they didn't have experience with the
> Self VM,
> on which it is based. But now we have one that is basically done,
> with just
> some debugging and tweaking here and there, which is a lot less
> effort than
> writing a new one.
>
> I'm not proposing that we all give up our different Smalltalk tools,
> libraries, GUIs, etc. In fact, hopefully this could be done
> without anyone
> having to commit to tossing their own VM out. The idea would be to
> factor
> out a core VM interface, and then each platform could wrap that as
> necessary
> to make it look the way their libraries expect it to. Then there
> would at
> least be the option of plugging in a different VM, and if people
> like it,
> they could then switch to it completely if they want.
>
> Of course, this requires compromising on all sides, since there are
> numerous
> small language and VM functionality differences we would have to
> iron out.
> But even if there is some pain there, the benefit of having a common
> language semantics and a bigger group of people supporting the VM
> should be
> worth it. It might even be a path, eventually, to reuniting the
> Smalltalks.
> For commercial Smalltalks, one big benefit would be the increased
> comfort
> that customers would have because the VM would be open source, and
> thus more
> likely to survive in the long term.
>
> I'm not saying that I or Strongtalk would even have to play the
> leading role
> here. There are plenty of smart VM people in the Smalltalk
> community, and
> they are welcome to step up and assert themselves.
>
> We need to look more closely at the various VM and language
> differences that
> we would have to overcome. What is everyones feedback on the
> difficulties
> and benefits of doing this?
>
> -Dave
>
>
>
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|