Lyndon Tremblay writes:
 > Unfortunately for Win32 builders, it does require 'struct foo' for it's VM
 > changes. I can again look into the VM here when I get a decent custom build
 > worth comparing with the official - I will probably actually use Exupery for
 > my project.

I do plan to fix the struct foo issues. They are there because I
originally quickly hacked in support for struct foo when it appeared
before I knew why it was there (and that it wasn't available on all
platforms). 

However getting a better speed up on Linux currently seems more
important. Make one platform work well before porting. If there is
enough interest I could look at Windows support sooner. Offers of help
always appreciated. I want to get it working well on one platform first
before focussing on porting.

Exupery 0.04 (from SqueakMap) may be useable, it depends on what you
want to do. If you've got a slow method that could be worth a primitive
but writing C seems like a drag, give it a go. 0.05 should be more
interesting, but the next release always is. It should have send speed
ups as well as better bytecode performance.

Oh, and if anyone is interested in Squeak based DSP languages,
compiling to machine code could be a better approach than compiling
to Slang. If only because Exupery compiles normal methods not a C
sub-set. Further optimisation is possible, especially for tight loops.

Bryce