Thoughts on a concurrent Squeak VM

Andreas Raab andreas.raab at
Thu Nov 1 01:00:02 UTC 2007

tim Rowledge wrote:
> Yes, we could probably rewrite a lot of code currently in C source files 
> and put it into Slang methods. Yes, we could probably improve Slang (we 
> tried to get some of that done at Interval but ran out of time) to be 
> more friendly. Yes, we could do lots of things. Got time to do them? Or 
> money to pay me/Craig/Andreas/Ian/John/Mike/Bryce/whoever to do it 
> fulltime? That's the kind of thing that would be required to be able to 
> make any major changes

Well, but let's not throw out the baby with the bath water. Improvements 
would be welcome, in particular if they are easy to review and to 
integrate. It is probably unwise to start this as the 
lets-rewrite-the-vm-and-its-tools-from-scratch approach but there are 
plenty of things that we could do better. For example, I would welcome a 
patch that enables the code generator to optionally build the entire VM 
as an object. That'd be a very nice stepping stone towared a 
multi-threaded VM and can probably be done in a fairly incremental way.

  - Andreas

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list