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

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.


>From: Bryce Kampjes <bryce at kampjes.demon.co.uk>
>Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers 
>list<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>To: The general-purpose Squeak developers 
>list<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>Subject: Re: [IDEAS] Looking at Factor
>Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2006 19:19:48 +0100
>
>Giovanni Giorgi writes:
>  >
>  > I am studying factor and would be quite easy to build a
>  > Squeak-bytecode2factor compiler.
>  > Because factor  has a x86/PPC compiler, we can get for free a very
>  > fast Squeak at the end.
>
>If your goal is to make Squeak much faster then helping out on
>Exupery would probably be less work with more gain. Exupery can
>already compile almost all of Squeak's bytecodes. It has polymorphic
>inline caches to speed up sends. It can compile blocks. It can
>dynamically inline primitives.
>
>The current priorities are compiling more primitives and fixing bugs
>aiming at getting to a 1.0 release as soon as possible.
>
>Bryce
>