steve.wart at gmail.com
Wed Oct 17 20:25:41 UTC 2007
I don't know if mapping Smalltalk processes to native threads is the way to
go, given the pain I've seen in the Java and C# space.
What might be interesting is to develop low-level primitives (along the
lines of the famed map/reduce operations) that provide parallel processing
versions of commonly used collection functions.
No idea how easy this would be to do, but on the surface seems more
promising than trying to do process/thread jiggery pokery.
On 10/17/07, Sebastian Sastre <ssastre at seaswork.com> wrote:
> This is not my area but I imagine that somehow Squeak processes should map
> to OS native threads paralellizable by each of the cores. Any chance to
> Exupery be of some help on that? I ask because if it is then is a must for
> that future.
> Sebastian Sastre
> > -----Mensaje original-----
> > De: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] En
> > nombre de gruntfuttuck
> > Enviado el: Miércoles, 17 de Octubre de 2007 06:10
> > Para: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > Asunto: Multy-core CPUs
> > How is squeak going to handle multy-core CPUs, if at all? If
> > we see cores of 100 plus in the future and squeak stay as it
> > is, I would imagine other languages such as erlang, will look
> > more attractive.
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> > http://www.nabble.com/Multy-core-CPUs-tf4639074.html#a13249733
> > Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Squeak-dev