om
Over the last several months I have been assembling a computer exclusively for work with Squeak 3.4. =)
Now that it has arrived I can get to work. The machine is a _DUAL_ Athlon 1.2 with 1gb RAM. The only mounted HD is an 850MB...
I would like to contribute towards the goal of "SqueakNOS" through the elimination of the X windowing system from the list of requirements...
My plan is to start a develment fork with the following two goals:
1. Squeak/LFB -- Get Squeak fully functional with only the linear framebuffer.
2. MTSqueak. -- Implement a Many:Many process model and any other requisite tools such as benchmarking, accounting, etc...
To persue these goals I would like to set up some kind of on-line archive such as the one for the win32 fork of Squeak at sourceforge. If there are any things I should take into consideration, plase inform me.
On the technical front, I will be beating the information about /dev/lfb and /dev/mouse of some leenooks snobs (its always hard to get inf0z from them).
On the squeak side, I need a list of the relevant classes..
The closest I have been able to find is "FFI-Examples-X11" but there is no class comment and it doesn't seem to be on the citical path for the system...
Is there a "Squeak Porting Guide" on the swiki?
Anyway, thax for noticing this message out of the immense heap that comes through this list...
Hello All,
How good is the threading system within squeak? I have quite a few little simulations written in Erlang and I thought I would try moving a few to squeak. This is for fun more then anything else.
I thought that the most interesting way to go about this would be to wrap objects up into their own threads, something like Mozart-Oz does with its active objects (http://www.mozart-oz.org/documentation/tutorial/node11.html#section.objectsc...)
<side-note> I realize their is nothing to be gained performance wise by the use of multiple threads. This is especially true in squeak as it uses VM threads. However, in this context I am using threads as another abstraction, nothing more. </side-note>
There will probably be a few problems, of course. I am not sure how 'light' squeak threads are. In Erlang processes cost almost nothing to spin off and the system is designed completely around concurrency. I don't expect Squeak to compete with Erlang or Mozart in this area, but it would need to support a goodly number of concurrent threads.
I should probably just test this, but I though it would be nice to get the communities input
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/
On Tuesday 04 March 2003 02:30 pm, Eric Merritt wrote:
I am not sure how 'light' squeak threads are. In Erlang processes cost almost nothing to spin off and the system is designed completely around concurrency. I don't expect Squeak to compete with Erlang or Mozart in this area, but it would need to support a goodly number of concurrent threads.
Squeak threads are very light.
Andreas says that he's had over 10000 of them running.
Eric,
I think you might be positively surprised about Squeak's threads. They are very lightweight and process switching is extremely efficient - according to my measures a process switch costs roughly as much as four message sends. In fact, if you do heavy process switching you will find that Squeak's dog-simple implementation beats commercial variants (such as VisualWorks) by factors of ~20. All in all my experience with threads in Squeak was extremely pleasant so I encourage you to give it a try.
Cheers, - Andreas
-----Original Message----- From: squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Eric Merritt Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 11:30 PM To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Squeak and Active Objects
Hello All,
How good is the threading system within squeak? I have quite a few little simulations written in Erlang and I thought I would try moving a few to squeak. This is for fun more then anything else.
I thought that the most interesting way to go about this would be to wrap objects up into their own threads, something like Mozart-Oz does with its active objects (http://www.mozart-oz.org/documentation/tutorial/node11.html#s ection.objectscc.active)
<side-note> I realize their is nothing to be gained performance wise by the use of multiple threads. This is especially true in squeak as it uses VM threads. However, in this context I am using threads as another abstraction, nothing more. </side-note>
There will probably be a few problems, of course. I am not sure how 'light' squeak threads are. In Erlang processes cost almost nothing to spin off and the system is designed completely around concurrency. I don't expect Squeak to compete with Erlang or Mozart in this area, but it would need to support a goodly number of concurrent threads.
I should probably just test this, but I though it would be nice to get the communities input
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/
Andreas, I am going to give it a shot. I think I have the implementation worked out. The only issue I need to work out now is the process scheduling issue. Tom offered some insight there that may help. I may also go and hack into process scheduler and see what I can see.
All in all it should be fun.
Thanks, Eric --- Andreas Raab andreas.raab@gmx.de wrote:
Eric,
I think you might be positively surprised about Squeak's threads. They are very lightweight and process switching is extremely efficient - according to my measures a process switch costs roughly as much as four message sends. In fact, if you do heavy process switching you will find that Squeak's dog-simple implementation beats commercial variants (such as VisualWorks) by factors of ~20. All in all my experience with threads in Squeak was extremely pleasant so I encourage you to give it a try.
Cheers,
- Andreas
-----Original Message----- From:
squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org
[mailto:squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org]
On
Behalf Of Eric Merritt Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 11:30 PM To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Squeak and Active Objects
Hello All,
How good is the threading system within squeak? I have quite a few little simulations written in
Erlang
and I thought I would try moving a few to squeak.
This
is for fun more then anything else.
I thought that the most interesting way to go
about
this would be to wrap objects up into their own threads, something like Mozart-Oz does with its
active
objects
(http://www.mozart-oz.org/documentation/tutorial/node11.html#s
ection.objectscc.active)
<side-note> I realize their is nothing to be gained
performance
wise by the use of multiple threads. This is especially true in squeak as it uses VM threads. However, in this context I am using threads as
another
abstraction, nothing more.
</side-note>
There will probably be a few problems, of course.
I
am not sure how 'light' squeak threads are. In
Erlang
processes cost almost nothing to spin off and the system is designed completely around concurrency.
I
don't expect Squeak to compete with Erlang or
Mozart
in this area, but it would need to support a
goodly
number of concurrent threads.
I should probably just test this, but I though it would be nice to get the communities input
Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/
__________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org