[Squeakfoundation]re: reviewing the simulator fixes

[PhiHo Hoang]

Bert Freudenberg wrote:

> Of course. It's just a naming confusion, but I would find it more
> intuitive if there was a separate "VM" package containing ObjectMemory
> and Interpreter, ...

    There will be absolutely no confusion if we have packages like
    'Interpreter', 'ObjectMemory' (even if Intepreter isa ObjectMemory ;-)

>... as well as the standard plugins.
>

    and one for each equal plugin (of course some are more equal ;-)

    And one for all the stuckins (until they are liberated ;-)

    Cheers,

    PhiHo.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bert Freudenberg" <bert at isg.cs.uni-magdeburg.de>
To: "Discussing the Squeak Foundation"
<squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2003 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: [Squeakfoundation]re: reviewing the simulator fixes


> Am Donnerstag, 26.06.03 um 20:44 Uhr schrieb Andreas Raab:
>
> >> Why is the simulator dependent on VMMaker? curious.
> >
> > Helloho ;-) The VM (e.g., the actual code seen in ObjectMemory and
> > Interpreter) _are_ the simulator. What the simulator classes do is
> > merely
> > providing a few methods for stuff that we otherwise assume the C
> > compiler
> > does (longAt: ...) including nasty things that we don't have to worry
> > about
> > in Squeak (endianness anyone?).
> >
> > It's the "living spec" thing all along.
>
> Absolutely. And folks who need to know do know this ;-)
> But ...
>
> > If you have VMMaker you've got the VM
>
> ... which is not obvious at all. At least I would have expected the
> "VMMaker" package to contain the VMMaker tool, not the VM source code
> itself.
>
> > and you can't simulate the interpreter without actually having it ;-)
>
> Of course. It's just a naming confusion, but I would find it more
> intuitive if there was a separate "VM" package containing ObjectMemory
> and Interpreter, as well as the standard plugins.
>
> -- Bert
>
> PS:  I wouldn't even mind if the "VM" package contained the VMMaker
> tool, too. Maybe we should just rename it?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Squeakfoundation mailing list
> Squeakfoundation at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/listinfo/squeakfoundation