Andrew, David (thank you for the hint with the compile times) > and Dean have favorized Plugins as implementation choice (for different reasons).
I think this is a possible variant which makes sense, too. > But also I think
that's not the main point:
- it should be possible for a non C-freak just by reading sources in
Smalltalk to get a working idea how its possible to make LargeInteger computations in Smalltalk => this is the didactic approach;
Plugins, as various people have proposed, would be written in Smalltalk, in Squeak.
- its interesting to have LargeInt arithmetics __as fast as possible__
without the coercion to follow the 'didactic' implementation line => cryptographic, maths, random generators, advertising > (for people who compare Squeak with other Smalltalks);
Plugins should have no meaningful overhead, particularly if implemented as byteArrays.
- then it should be as portable as possible, so don't try > near assembler
programming.
Again, plugins should be highly portable. Frankly, I don't understand Stephan's objections on any of these points.
Some personal remarks: I want to start this around mid of November (then I have some > holidays, now I'm working for money and writing these mails ;-)). But after > start I have to
- compile Squeak first;
Why?
- understand the plugin mechanism with a simple example, not > 'primitive' ;-)
example, what I first have written;
Examples can be found in the image. There is also some doco on the Swiki.
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org