[Vm-dev] [Pharo-project] Plan/discussion/communication around new object format

Igor Stasenko siguctua at gmail.com
Thu Jun 14 23:39:03 UTC 2012

On 14 June 2012 23:47, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 11:17 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:
>> What i really don't understand is why my opponents readily want to
>> sacrifice the performance in order to deal with consequences of having
>> complex systems, when its hard to reason about it,
>> and at same time completely opposed to proposal of adding features
>> which will help to reduce complexity in a first place, like adding
>> slot for having arbitrary properties.
> You;re putting up a straw man.  You *think* performance of immutability is an issue, but my experience tells me it isn't.  I've implemented it before.  So please stop raising an invalid objection.

Remember, what i have been told when i implemented a language-side
scheduling, removing the
need of VM to even know that is Semaphore?
I been told *it is slow*. And this was the *only* argument against it,
why it is found unacceptable.
So why mine is invalid while yours are valid?
So, i playing the same game here, by using the same argument.

Of course i can just shut up.. but then tell me to shut up , but don't
say that i raising invalid objections.

Best regards,
Igor Stasenko.

More information about the Vm-dev mailing list