Subjective Squeak

Stephen Pair spair at acm.org
Wed Dec 11 19:29:47 UTC 2002


Anthony Hannan wrote:

> "Stephen Pair" <spair at acm.org> wrote:
> > But even the stack optimizations that are in VI4
> > concern me a bit.  It seems like that goes too far into the 
> research 
> > realm and jeopardizes the acceptance of the work done on block 
> > closures. Everyone knows what block closures are and why they are 
> > needed; there is a much greater chance of them getting into 
> the base 
> > VM if they don't come with extra stuff that's less well 
> understood and 
> > proven.
> 
> The stack issue will be worked out when considering a Jitter. 
>  But if we keep on resisting changes because they are not 
> proven, we'll never make progress.  Squeak is primarily a 
> research project.  We don't have any customers funding or 
> donating to us.  So lets take advantage of this freedom and 
> really advance Squeak.

I agree, I don't mean to suggest that progress should stop.  But there
are projects being done in Squeak where a more reserved approach to the
indroduction of research focused things is warranted.  All I'm saying is
that I would *really* like block closures.  And I think having block
closures stand on its own as a modification to Squeak is useful.  That
way, it can be evaluated for adoption (by whomever wants it) on its own
merits.

- Stephen 




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list