Interesting questions.  I've been watching the Strongtalk group.  Does
either of these issues, reusing ObjectMemory, or having a smalltalk vm limit
in your opinion the benefits of the Strongtalk vm?  From Dan's comments and
from the apparent speed and packaging benefits I would think that we should
support a Strongtalk VM for squeak in what ever way they could provide it.  

If we accepted that the base VM is C++ then couldn't plugins still be slang,
(or the slang plugins still be supported by the base Strongtalk vm) or is
this too much for the squeak community to accept?

Ron

> From: Klaus D. Witzel
> Sent: Monday, September 18, 2006 11:41 AM

> Hi Ron,
> 
> I've asked David Griswold who posts over in vm-dev about reusing Squeak's
> ObjectMemory, the answer was: rather not (because slangish, because
> squeakish). And earlier Craig asked him if they want the VM be written in
> Smalltalk, the answer was: too huge a project for now, but in the long
> term self-hosting and self-debugging would be great.
> 
> BTW the Strongtalk list is @
> - http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/strongtalk/
> 
> This perhaps looks like a not so fast development project; also
> performance for them is critical due to startup and compilation pauses.
> But perhaps they will find acceptable material - resuable things - and
> also funds and hands with VM knowledge.
> 
> Time will show. Indeed, David wrote that their goal is producing a version
> of the Strongtalk VM for Squeak ...
> 
> /Klaus
> 
> On Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:29:15 +0200, Ron wrote:
> > Klaus wrote:
> >> Let's bring Squeak to the masses. Or, am I wrong with this?
> >
> > No you are right here, but we need to get organized and support the
> > community that is needed to take over from the previous "owners" of
> > squeak.
> >
> >> I run a commercial business and want to base my success on Squeak.
> >
> > [+1 big]
> >
> > When do nominations for the foundation start!
> >
> > Ron
> >
> > P.S. Klaus have you looked at the StrongTalk VM yet?
> 
>