Hello,
there is an explosion of different kinds of VM we're building today.. and i think it would be nice to use different names for them. Currently i am using following naming scheme:
- VMs based on StackInterpreter: StackVM
- VMs with JIT Cog
- VMs with JIT + MT CogMT
i am open for suggestions of giving better/proper names.
Maybe for end-user it is not important to use different names (squeak.. yeah.. this is squeak.. who cares).. but when testing VMs and/or opening older images with proper VMs it turns into a puzzle game. Also, i think that Cog is good name and executables deserve to carry this name (instead of squeak or croquet). That's why i'm not questioning whether new VMs should use different names. I am only questioning which names we should use :)
what means MT?
Stef On Mar 19, 2011, at 11:03 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Hello,
there is an explosion of different kinds of VM we're building today.. and i think it would be nice to use different names for them. Currently i am using following naming scheme:
- VMs based on StackInterpreter:
StackVM
- VMs with JIT
Cog
- VMs with JIT + MT
CogMT
i am open for suggestions of giving better/proper names.
Maybe for end-user it is not important to use different names (squeak.. yeah.. this is squeak.. who cares).. but when testing VMs and/or opening older images with proper VMs it turns into a puzzle game. Also, i think that Cog is good name and executables deserve to carry this name (instead of squeak or croquet). That's why i'm not questioning whether new VMs should use different names. I am only questioning which names we should use :)
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 9:38 AM, stephane ducasse < stephane.ducasse@gmail.com> wrote:
what means MT?
Multi Threaded or similar
Stef On Mar 19, 2011, at 11:03 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Hello,
there is an explosion of different kinds of VM we're building today.. and i think it would be nice to use different names for them. Currently i am using following naming scheme:
- VMs based on StackInterpreter:
StackVM
- VMs with JIT
Cog
- VMs with JIT + MT
CogMT
i am open for suggestions of giving better/proper names.
Maybe for end-user it is not important to use different names (squeak.. yeah.. this is squeak.. who cares).. but when testing VMs and/or opening older images with proper VMs it turns into a puzzle game. Also, i think that Cog is good name and executables deserve to carry this name (instead of squeak or croquet). That's why i'm not questioning whether new VMs should use different names. I am only questioning which names we should use :)
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
Yes I got it after :)
On Mar 20, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 9:38 AM, stephane ducasse stephane.ducasse@gmail.com wrote:
what means MT?
Multi Threaded or similar
Stef On Mar 19, 2011, at 11:03 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Hello,
there is an explosion of different kinds of VM we're building today.. and i think it would be nice to use different names for them. Currently i am using following naming scheme:
- VMs based on StackInterpreter:
StackVM
- VMs with JIT
Cog
- VMs with JIT + MT
CogMT
i am open for suggestions of giving better/proper names.
Maybe for end-user it is not important to use different names (squeak.. yeah.. this is squeak.. who cares).. but when testing VMs and/or opening older images with proper VMs it turns into a puzzle game. Also, i think that Cog is good name and executables deserve to carry this name (instead of squeak or croquet). That's why i'm not questioning whether new VMs should use different names. I am only questioning which names we should use :)
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Hello,
there is an explosion of different kinds of VM we're building today.. and i think it would be nice to use different names for them.
Sounds good.
Currently i am using following naming scheme:
- VMs based on StackInterpreter:
StackVM
- VMs with JIT
Cog
- VMs with JIT + MT
CogMT
i am open for suggestions of giving better/proper names.
What about sticking VM to the end of each of them? Like here: StackVM, CogVM, CogMTVM, and InterpreterVM
Maybe for end-user it is not important to use different names (squeak.. yeah.. this is squeak.. who cares)..
It also helps identifying the VM in bug reports.
Levente
but when testing VMs and/or opening older images with proper VMs it turns into a puzzle game. Also, i think that Cog is good name and executables deserve to carry this name (instead of squeak or croquet). That's why i'm not questioning whether new VMs should use different names. I am only questioning which names we should use :)
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Levente Uzonyi leves@elte.hu wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Hello,
there is an explosion of different kinds of VM we're building today.. and i think it would be nice to use different names for them.
Sounds good.
Currently i am using following naming scheme:
- VMs based on StackInterpreter:
StackVM
- VMs with JIT
Cog
- VMs with JIT + MT
CogMT
i am open for suggestions of giving better/proper names.
What about sticking VM to the end of each of them? Like here: StackVM, CogVM, CogMTVM, and InterpreterVM
I like the VM suffix. But what would really float my boat would be if InterpreterVM was called ContextVM. Taking Igor's list anew
-Interpreted VMs using contexts based on Interpreter ContextVM
- Interpreted VMs using a stack organization based on StackInterpreter: StackVM
- Co-Interpreter+JIT VMs using a stack organization based on CoInterpreter: CogVM
- Co-Interpreter+JIT VMs using a stack organization and with multi-threading FFI support based on CoInterpreterMT CogMTVM
Maybe for end-user it is not important to use different names (squeak.. yeah.. this is squeak.. who cares)..
It also helps identifying the VM in bug reports.
Levente
but when testing VMs and/or opening older images with proper VMs it
turns into a puzzle game. Also, i think that Cog is good name and executables deserve to carry this name (instead of squeak or croquet). That's why i'm not questioning whether new VMs should use different names. I am only questioning which names we should use :)
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
On 21 March 2011 05:45, Eliot Miranda eliot.miranda@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Levente Uzonyi leves@elte.hu wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Hello,
there is an explosion of different kinds of VM we're building today.. and i think it would be nice to use different names for them.
Sounds good.
Currently i am using following naming scheme:
- VMs based on StackInterpreter:
StackVM
- VMs with JIT
Cog
- VMs with JIT + MT
CogMT
i am open for suggestions of giving better/proper names.
What about sticking VM to the end of each of them? Like here: StackVM, CogVM, CogMTVM, and InterpreterVM
I like the VM suffix. But what would really float my boat would be if InterpreterVM was called ContextVM. Taking Igor's list anew
-Interpreted VMs using contexts based on Interpreter ContextVM
- Interpreted VMs using a stack organization based on StackInterpreter:
StackVM
- Co-Interpreter+JIT VMs using a stack organization based on CoInterpreter:
CogVM
- Co-Interpreter+JIT VMs using a stack organization and with multi-threading FFI support based on CoInterpreterMT
CogMTVM
Good. except that we don't have configs to build ContextVM.
Well... I need to make a paraphrasis of one of my childhood heroes here: "I fight for the users!" :)
I think so much names and versions are misleading for end users (of course, it is useful for us)... but I think end users will have a hard travel if we start to rename everything. I think all the new vms are "Cog", not matter if stack, jit, or jit-mt. More important: jit-mt is the evolution of jit version, so nobody will use the older once mt is tested enough.
So, I rather name the vms:
Cog Stack (or something more appealing for end users like "Cog Universal") Cog 1.0 Cog 2.0
... or something like that
(I know, I'm minority in this, but I needed to express my point of view, just for the record :) )
best, Esteban
El 21/03/2011, a las 4:48a.m., Igor Stasenko escribió:
On 21 March 2011 05:45, Eliot Miranda eliot.miranda@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Levente Uzonyi leves@elte.hu wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Igor Stasenko wrote:
Hello,
there is an explosion of different kinds of VM we're building today.. and i think it would be nice to use different names for them.
Sounds good.
Currently i am using following naming scheme:
- VMs based on StackInterpreter:
StackVM
- VMs with JIT
Cog
- VMs with JIT + MT
CogMT
i am open for suggestions of giving better/proper names.
What about sticking VM to the end of each of them? Like here: StackVM, CogVM, CogMTVM, and InterpreterVM
I like the VM suffix. But what would really float my boat would be if InterpreterVM was called ContextVM. Taking Igor's list anew
-Interpreted VMs using contexts based on Interpreter ContextVM
- Interpreted VMs using a stack organization based on StackInterpreter:
StackVM
- Co-Interpreter+JIT VMs using a stack organization based on CoInterpreter:
CogVM
- Co-Interpreter+JIT VMs using a stack organization and with multi-threading FFI support based on CoInterpreterMT
CogMTVM
Good. except that we don't have configs to build ContextVM.
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
On 21 March 2011 13:15, Esteban Lorenzano estebanlm@gmail.com wrote:
Well... I need to make a paraphrasis of one of my childhood heroes here: "I fight for the users!" :)
I think so much names and versions are misleading for end users (of course, it is useful for us)... but I think end users will have a hard travel if we start to rename everything. I think all the new vms are "Cog", not matter if stack, jit, or jit-mt. More important: jit-mt is the evolution of jit version, so nobody will use the older once mt is tested enough.
So, I rather name the vms:
Cog Stack (or something more appealing for end users like "Cog Universal") Cog 1.0 Cog 2.0
... or something like that
(I know, I'm minority in this, but I needed to express my point of view, just for the record :) )
Not at all. At a time of release, we can always rename VM to Squeak/Cog/Pharo/Croquet/whatever and ship it with corresponding image(s) in 1-click package. As you said, we need it internally (and especially during transition) because it is much nicer to have distinct names for every kind of VMs we're using/testing/developing.
best, Esteban
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 02:27:53PM +0100, Igor Stasenko wrote:
At a time of release, we can always rename VM to Squeak/Cog/Pharo/Croquet/whatever and ship it with corresponding image(s) in 1-click package. As you said, we need it internally (and especially during transition) because it is much nicer to have distinct names for every kind of VMs we're using/testing/developing.
Ooh. internal code names. fancy
vm-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Eliot Miranda -
Esteban Lorenzano -
Igor Stasenko -
Levente Uzonyi -
Mariano Martinez Peck -
Matthew Fulmer -
stephane ducasse