On Fri, 29 Apr 2011, Ben Coman wrote:

> Hannes Hirzel wrote:
>> I agree. Does this imply that two all-in-one packages are needed, a
>> Cog and an non-cog?
>> 
>> --Hannes
>> 
>> On 4/28/11, Levente Uzonyi <leves at elte.hu> wrote:
>> 
>>> Since this isn't the first time people do benchmarks, but don't download
>>> VMs independently, therefore I think we have to package VMs with the
>>> releases in the future. IIRC someone even concluded that Pharo is faster
>>> than Squeak, but he just used what he got from the website (Cog for Pharo
>>> and the interpreter vm for Squeak).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Levente
> Is the difference between a Cog and non-Cog VM just the a different exe (for 
> windows)?

Basically yes, some plugins are also different, but from the user's point 
of view it's just a different executable on all platforms.

> How compatible are the images for Cog and non-Cog? Could two executables be

In case of released images, only Squeak 4.2 is Cog compatible, because 
Cog was released shortly after the release of Squeak 4.1. But applying a 
few changes to a Squeak 4.1 image (that's what Pharo developers did to 
Pharo 1.1 to release Pharo 1.1.1) will make it Cog compatible.
This intermediate release seemed unnecessary for Squeak, because with a 
change of a preference and a single click (update) one could make her/his 
image Cog compatible.

> included in a single All-In-One package - ie named like SqueakClassic.exe & 
> SqueakCog.exe ?

Yes, it's possible, Cobalt is already packaged this way.


Levente

>
>