<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 9:38 AM, stephane ducasse <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stephane.ducasse@gmail.com">stephane.ducasse@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
what means MT?<br></blockquote><div><br>Multi Threaded or similar<br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>
Stef<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5">On Mar 19, 2011, at 11:03 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:<br>
<br>
><br>
> Hello,<br>
><br>
> there is an explosion of different kinds of VM we're building today..<br>
> and i think it would be nice to use different names for them.<br>
> Currently i am using following naming scheme:<br>
><br>
> - VMs based on StackInterpreter:<br>
> StackVM<br>
><br>
> - VMs with JIT<br>
> Cog<br>
><br>
> - VMs with JIT + MT<br>
> CogMT<br>
><br>
> i am open for suggestions of giving better/proper names.<br>
><br>
> Maybe for end-user it is not important to use different names<br>
> (squeak.. yeah.. this is squeak.. who cares)..<br>
> but when testing VMs and/or opening older images with proper VMs it<br>
> turns into a puzzle game.<br>
> Also, i think that Cog is good name and executables deserve to carry<br>
> this name (instead of squeak or croquet).<br>
> That's why i'm not questioning whether new VMs should use different<br>
> names. I am only questioning which names we should use :)<br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> Best regards,<br>
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.<br>
<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>