[squeak-dev] Re: Why FFI is not included with latest squeak ?
Yanni Chiu
yanni at rogers.com
Fri Aug 17 20:21:30 UTC 2012
On 17/08/12 2:46 PM, Lawson English wrote:
>
> Which is a huge downside to the current implementation of NativeBoost,
> although, in theory, you could create a version that would compile to C
> via slang rather than using Igor's x86 assembler syntax.
But it's called *Native*Boost. Are you suggesting non-native boost?
Wouldn't that be Cog/JIT?
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|