<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3199" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=671263800-18102007>Mmmm original, yeah thats a very different
approach. Hard to say which one is best. But for your comments, maybe the
primitives way is a path *better* for the human beigns that program
the system in terms of easing that pain. </SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=671263800-18102007></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=671263800-18102007> Question: that would be a path that
prioritizes usability at samlltalk developer level? if so, for me is more
interesting even if it is less efficient than the other in terms of a couple of
more or less [whatever measure unit] per second that in one year will be
duplicated with a cpu with 2 more cores for a few u$s.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=671263800-18102007></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=671263800-18102007></SPAN></FONT><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff
size=2><SPAN class=671263800-18102007> Not prioritizing
usability and intelectual ergonomy is equal to not geting the point of all this
smalltalk thing, perhaps even more.. all TI thing. Just a
thought.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=671263800-18102007></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=671263800-18102007> I'm quite sure that multicore this
is the begining of a new crisis for the industry. But is a good
one!</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=671263800-18102007></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr align=left><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff size=2><SPAN
class=671263800-18102007> cheers,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face="Trebuchet MS" color=#0000ff size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><SPAN class=250542422-20122006>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt" align=left><?xml:namespace prefix
= st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:PersonName
ProductID="Sebastian Sastre " w:st="on"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Trebuchet MS'">Sebastian
Sastre<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office"
/><o:p></o:p></SPAN></st1:PersonName></P></DIV></SPAN><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=es dir=ltr align=left>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>De:</B>
squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org
[mailto:squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org] <B>En nombre de
</B>Steve Wart<BR><B>Enviado el:</B> Miércoles, 17 de Octubre de 2007
17:26<BR><B>Para:</B> The general-purpose Squeak developers
list<BR><B>Asunto:</B> Re: Multy-core CPUs<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>I don't know if mapping Smalltalk processes to native threads is
the way to go, given the pain I've seen in the Java and C# space.<BR><BR>What
might be interesting is to develop low-level primitives (along the lines of
the famed map/reduce operations) that provide parallel processing versions of
commonly used collection functions. <BR><BR>No idea how easy this would be to
do, but on the surface seems more promising than trying to do process/thread
jiggery pokery.<BR><BR>Steve<BR><BR>
<DIV><SPAN class=gmail_quote>On 10/17/07, <B class=gmail_sendername>Sebastian
Sastre</B> <<A
href="mailto:ssastre@seaswork.com">ssastre@seaswork.com</A>> wrote:</SPAN>
<BLOCKQUOTE class=gmail_quote
style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(204,204,204) 1px solid">This
is not my area but I imagine that somehow Squeak processes should map<BR>to
OS native threads paralellizable by each of the cores. Any chance
to<BR>Exupery be of some help on that? I ask because if it is then is a must
for <BR>that
future.<BR><BR> regards,<BR><BR>Sebastian
Sastre<BR><BR><BR>> -----Mensaje original-----<BR>> De: <A
href="mailto:squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org">squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org
</A><BR>> [mailto:<A
href="mailto:squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org">squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org</A>]
En<BR>> nombre de gruntfuttuck<BR>> Enviado el: Miércoles, 17 de
Octubre de 2007 06:10 <BR>> Para: <A
href="mailto:squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org">squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org</A><BR>>
Asunto: Multy-core CPUs<BR>><BR>><BR>> How is squeak going to
handle multy-core CPUs, if at all? If <BR>> we see cores of 100 plus in
the future and squeak stay as it<BR>> is, I would imagine other languages
such as erlang, will look<BR>> more attractive.<BR>> --<BR>> View
this message in context:<BR>> <A
href="http://www.nabble.com/Multy-core-CPUs-tf4639074.html#a13249733">http://www.nabble.com/Multy-core-CPUs-tf4639074.html#a13249733</A><BR>>
Sent from the Squeak - Dev mailing list archive at <A
href="http://Nabble.com">Nabble.com</A>.<BR>><BR>><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>