> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
> [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] En 
> nombre de nicolas cellier
> Enviado el: Jueves, 25 de Octubre de 2007 17:40
> Para: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> Asunto: Re: Multy-core CPUs
> 
> But Smalltalk methods are sequential procedures by nature, so 
> having a process per object maybe would adress mutual 
> exclusion problem, but will not introduce parallelism per se.
> 
But that's a black hole which I don't want to enter nor be near. I never
wanted to introduce parallelism per se. What I do want is *just* to get a
Smalltalk that can conveniently balance the cpu load in an arbitrary
quantity of cores.

> Someone has to decide to break execution sequential path into 
....
> 
> PS: for fun, what happens to all-is-object paradigm if each 
> and every object has a MessageQueue object? What is the 
> MessageQueue of the MessageQueue of ...
> 
> 
LOL.. Good question kind of class Metaclass Moebious thing

Cheers,

Sebastian