[squeak-dev] Compiling Smalltalk
Alejandro F. Reimondo
aleReimondo at smalltalking.net
Sun Jul 12 16:23:54 UTC 2009
Hi Hernán,
I have not written any comparison between DNG and Squeak.
Someone can do that after DNG release or with information that will
be publised on lists and at DNG site (www.dng.st is under construction
it will be the major source of public information about the smalltalk
for next generation).
I consider the business model proposed in DNG and Squeak
are very diferent, so imo, it is better to evluate each option (there are
a lot of choices today to work with Smalltalk) and where/when/how
to use the most convenient for the inmediate case eachone is facing.
There is no need to converge, nor a universal vision about smalltalk.
I have not had oportunities to make "real" use of Erlang, nor worked
with other persons wich make profesional use of it. I have made
some readings about "the language" and run the samples (too
atomic/naïve under my pov). All what I have seen that has any
relation with use of objects, can be made with DNG; I have
review the web pages after reading your email to find something
that present a problem for our smalltalk platform but do not find
any feature that can´t be implemented in DNG.
I don't know if that features (e.g. strategy on processes, etc) will be
implemented at first DNG release, because 1.0 will contain the features
needed by major customers (to migrate and mantain high
perfomance software, already written in Smalltalk and with
a great position in the market).
In other words, if you are looking for some Erlang features
needed in your products, or have exerience in it and want
to collaborate giving asistance in servers implementation (or other)
to companies considering the DNG platform, please contact us
(this is the best way to ensure the features will be there asap).
cheers,
Ale.
----- Original Message -----
From: Hernán Morales Durand
To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
Sent: Saturday, July 11, 2009 4:55 PM
Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Compiling Smalltalk
Hi Ale,
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?
Best regards,
Hernán
2009/7/11 Alejandro F. Reimondo <aleReimondo at smalltalking.net>
David,
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).
cheers,
Ale.
----- Original Message -----
From: David Zmick
To: Squeak-dev List
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?
thanks
--
David Zmick
/dz0004455\
http://david-zmick.co.cc
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20090712/c195df05/attachment.htm
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|