<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 7:06 AM, Matthew Fulmer <<a href="mailto:tapplek@gmail.com">tapplek@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
While talking to Craig about spoon, I learned that Tim made a<br>
new Compiled Method format using normal objects, and (I think) a<br>
VM that ran it. I tried searching for it and came up with:<br>
<br>
New Compiled Method Format and 3.0 Image<br>
<a href="http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/750VI4" target="_blank">http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/750<br>
VI4</a><br>
<a href="http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/2119" target="_blank">http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/2119</a><br>
Version 4<br>
<a href="http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/3716" target="_blank">http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/3716</a><br>
<br>
I have been discussing what would go into Squeak 4 since we now<br>
need to create such a system, due to the urgency of the license<br>
situation, and I am now leaning toward Spoon rather than<br>
KernelImage as a basis for Squeak4, after learning the magnitude<br>
of the relicense effort on Monday.<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br>Tell us about the magnitude of this relicense effort... is it unachievable? Would we spend less time on the relicensing if we "just did it" using vanilla 3.10, or would it be less time in total to include this refactoring first and then do the relicensing?<br>
<br>Personally, I will eventually (1-2 years maybe?) need a refactored and tidied up CompiledMethod format for my own project, so I have a vested interest in this.<br><br>Gulik.<br><br><br>-- <br><a href="http://people.squeakfoundation.org/person/mikevdg">http://people.squeakfoundation.org/person/mikevdg</a><br>
<a href="http://gulik.pbwiki.com/">http://gulik.pbwiki.com/</a>