<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Levente Uzonyi <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:leves@elte.hu">leves@elte.hu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Igor Stasenko wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<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>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
Sounds good.<div class="im"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
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>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
What about sticking VM to the end of each of them? Like here:<br>
StackVM, CogVM, CogMTVM, and InterpreterVM</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I like the VM suffix. But what would really float my boat would be if InterpreterVM was called ContextVM. Taking Igor's list anew</div><div>
<br></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; border-collapse: collapse; "><br>-Interpreted VMs using contexts based on Interpreter</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; border-collapse: collapse; "> ContextVM</span></div>
<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; border-collapse: collapse; "><br>- Interpreted VMs using a stack organization based on StackInterpreter:<br> StackVM<br><br>- Co-Interpreter+JIT VMs using a stack organization based on CoInterpreter:<br>
CogVM<br><br>- Co-Interpreter+JIT VMs using a stack organization and with multi-threading FFI support based on CoInterpreterMT<br> CogMTVM</span></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; border-collapse: collapse; "><br>
</span></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
Maybe for end-user it is not important to use different names<br>
(squeak.. yeah.. this is squeak.. who cares)..<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
It also helps identifying the VM in bug reports.<br><font color="#888888">
<br>
<br>
Levente</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
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>
</blockquote>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>