The Design and Implementation of ConcurrentSmalltalk

http://www.amazon.com/Implementation-Concurrent-Smalltalk-Computer-Science/dp/9810201125

>From the Introduction: "In Concurrent Smalltalk, an object is not only
a unit of data abstraction but also a unit of execution."

On 10/25/07, Jason Johnson <jason.johnson.081 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/24/07, Sebastian Sastre <ssastre at seaswork.com> wrote:
> >
> > So I'm stating here that in a smalltalk image of the future *every object
> > should have a process*. Every instance. All of them.
>
> That is an interesting idea.  That would open a door to a new way of
> Garbage collection, because it can then be tied to the exit of a
> process.
>
> > Said that I return to the problem you stated about the need of copy copy
> > copy, saying that this premise changes things and you don't need to copy
> > anymore because a VM like that, no matter who or when, an instVar of an
> > object is to be modified it will provide you of guarantee that the write
> > will be made by the process that corresponds to that instance.
>
> Yes, in such a system, you don't need to copy because all that gets
> passed around are references to processes.
>
>