On 31/10/2007, Jason Johnson <jason.johnson.081 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/31/07, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I don't know what to add to above. I just said that we should use
> > approaches which is best fit for architecture where our project(s)
> > will run on.
> > Of course what is best fit is arguable. But i don't think we should
> > drop a shared memory model support when we building a system on top of
> > architecture which haves it.
>
> So what we can build must be constrained by an implementation detail
> that's not even visible to us [1]?  If I had seen this on a C++ list I
> wouldn't be so surprised but Smalltalk? :)
>
But why smalltalk? I'm talking about VM, which is much closer to
hardware than smalltalk. As you know a squeak VM are compiled from C
sources.
You are free to use any model you want in smalltalk, but for VM?

> [1]  Obviously we don't because Intel and AMD don't handle shared
> memory access the same way.  AMD already does something a bit closer
> to message passing:
> http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/cpu/rmma-numa.html
>
>


-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.