[squeak-dev] Compiling Smalltalk
Hernán Morales Durand
hernan.morales at gmail.com
Sat Jul 11 19:55:41 UTC 2009
Can you talk a little bit about the architectural differences between DNG
and Squeak (or other Smalltalks)? It will include advances developed in the
area of autonomic systems or structured overlay networks? something like the
Erlang's supervisor tree or subsumption architecture?
2009/7/11 Alejandro F. Reimondo <aleReimondo at smalltalking.net>
> You can find a lot of experiences in Smalltalk field, some
> many years before Java language was designed. If you do
> some research in Smalltalk history,
> a lot of good moments of reading is granted.
> IMO Smalltalk without native compilation demostrates
> the simplicity of Smalltalk (Dolphin Smalltalk low level
> impl. come to my mind here), but it is a must where
> high perfomance is required.
> When considering object systems we must also consider
> garbage collection and flow of energy spent in the system,
> that most of the times is not reported from execution
> speed nor microbenchmarks.
> A lot of development has been done using Smalltalk
> platforms (some results was exploited in java implementations
> and others)... in dynamic compilation,
> in strategies to manage objects and garbage
> and in development of self sustaining systems.
> Smalltalk do not impose a common base nor
> fixed VM semantics, so advances in smalltalk
> are diverse and continue today. This is the reason why
> we can see diferent alternatives for smalltalk and
> no need to converge to an universal model.
> The compilation to native level is a must for a high
> perfomance smalltalk, but it is not enough; today
> eficience is needed at all levels and also compromise
> with history (new smalltalk platforms like DNG,
> comes to my mind here).
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* David Zmick <dz0004455 at gmail.com>
> *To:* Squeak-dev List <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> *Sent:* Friday, July 10, 2009 10:40 PM
> *Subject:* [squeak-dev] Compiling Smalltalk
> Me and a cousin of mine where discussing the speed of compiled languages vs
> the speed of interpreted languages and the subject of compiling interpreted
> languages came up. Languages like Java that are compiled down to bytecode
> can then be compiled to machine code, but I was under the impression that
> concept was impossible with smalltalk. Why is this? And, I know there is a
> project to build a compiler for smaltalk, what is the concept behind it?
> David Zmick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Squeak-dev