[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