Multy-core CPUs

Jason Johnson jason.johnson.081 at gmail.com
Tue Oct 23 17:25:25 UTC 2007


On 10/22/07, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> An 'erlangenization' of sends mean that we need deal differently with
> contexts. I think best way for this, is to rethink a context to make
> it look closer to what is a process in Erlang.
> Yes, we must pay the price of making all contexts be real objects for
> each message send, so we might expect a real slow-down of single
> thread execution.
> Then the only way how we could regain this loss is to use highly
> parallelisable algorithms.

Aha!  Ok, the confusion is indeed coming from us talking about two
different things.

My suggestion:  Add true (explicit!) concurrency to Squeak by way of
async "Actor" style message (like what Erlang has)

What you seem to think I'm suggesting:  Making Squeak message send
transparently inter-process.

But this is exactly what I *don't* want.  In my experience, trying to
abstract these different concepts into one thing just make code that's
impossible to reason about.  I want my inter-process communication
doable and easy, but explicit as I can.



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list