Dear Goran,

	I'd love to see Exupery reach it's objetives and run squeak for
Windows (as I guess other would love to see it in Mac). Is a good project
Squeak have. I'm favorable in all means to the improvements exupery's is
trying to bring. I think is all "profit" for us all.
 
	cheers,

Sebastian

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
> [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] En 
> nombre de goran at krampe.se
> Enviado el: Jueves, 18 de Mayo de 2006 05:56
> Para: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> Asunto: Re: Technology of the technologies (WAS: A Lisper 
> asks,"Am I supposed to like Smalltalk?")
> 
> Hi!
> 
> Hans-Martin Mosner <hmm at heeg.de> wrote:
> > tim Rowledge wrote:
> > > Compiling straight to machine code is certainly doable; it simply 
> > > involves a lot more work since you have to develop and 
> optimise and 
> > > debug a *lot* more stuff. For example, you'd have to rewrite the 
> > > compiler, the debugger, the InstructionStream related classes and 
> > > tools, any system that expects to write out methods, etc 
> etc. Send 
> > > enough money and I will arrange it for you. Discussions 
> could start 
> > > at, ooh, One *Million* Euros.
> > 
> > Doable, but not really a good way to implement Smalltalk.
> 
> And so what do you guys think of Exupery? I had the distinct 
> impression that Exupery is exactly this (a sophisticated 
> machine code compiler for
> Smalltalk) - and as long as Exupery can mop the floor with 
> the regular VM performance wise - then why would it be "not 
> really a good way"?
> 
> If the reader don't know what Exupery is then look at the 
> movie or read the handout:
> 
> 	http://goran.krampe.se/blog/Squeak/ExuperyTalk2006.rdoc
> 		
> 
> regards, Göran
>