Eliminating superclass lookup in the VM (and dynamic composition of behavior)

Stephen Pair spair at acm.org
Thu Dec 12 14:52:31 UTC 2002


David,

Is there something that I can read that describes "managed objects"?
I've heard you mention them a few times, but I don't yet understand the
full meaning of that phrase.  I get the sense that you've travelled down
this path before and know exactly where it leads.  There are probably a
million issues that I can't even begin to comprehend at this stage.

- Stephen

> <g>
> 
> Now you're talking. This is the concept in S#, etc behind 
> "managed objects". Where one can completely control the 
> entire binding/dispatching process from start to finish. 
> While still having the option of utilizing hi-perf caching 
> provided by the VM if you want it.
> 
> Effectively allowing the VM to merely provide some "optimized" special
> (common) case solutions for binding/dispatching.
> 
> -- Dave S. [SmallScript Corp]
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> SmallScript for the AOS & .NET Platforms 
> David.Simmons at SmallScript.com http://www.smallscript.org
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: squeak-dev-admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
> [mailto:squeak-dev- 
> > admin at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On 
> Behalf Of Stephen Pair
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 11, 2002 5:29 PM
> > To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> > Subject: RE: Eliminating superclass lookup in the VM (and dynamic 
> > composition of behavior)
> > 
> > > Once you have a conceptual model with nice properties, the 
> > > implementation is just a "technical exercise", and it can 
> of course 
> > > be done in different ways. Typically you encounter the same 
> > > space-performance trade-off as in nearly all the other kind of 
> > > implementations. As an example, just consider traits:
> > 
> > Sure, but from my perspective, the VM is currently implementing a 
> > rigid conceptual model.  If we can get that out of the VM, 
> or at least 
> > make it cleaner to override that behavior, then it's much easier to 
> > play around with other concepts in behavior 
> composition...and that's 
> > what I'm after.
> > 
> > With regard to how behavior is bound to a given message, 
> perhaps the 
> > only assumption that we should make (in the VM) is that we 
> can make no 
> > assumptions.
> > 
> > - Stephen
> 
> 
> 
> 




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list