Re: [squeak-dev] Squeak Oversight Board minutes – 5/01/12

Casey Ransberger casey.obrien.r at gmail.com
Fri May 4 02:50:13 UTC 2012


Inline and abridged. 

On May 3, 2012, at 8:13 AM, Casimiro de Almeida Barreto <casimiro.barreto at gmail.com> wrote:

> On 02-05-2012 09:57, Chris Cunnington wrote:
>> Squeak Oversight Board minutes – 5/01/12
>> 
>> (big snip)
> It would be interesting to have a x86_64 version of Cog running in all
> supported platforms (windowze, OS X, Linux, iOS, etc). i686 architecture
> is not well supported in newer versions of many OSes, particularly
> mixing i686 and x86_64 in Linux is kind of hell. Besides, it makes no
> sense to have only the old 32bit image and it would be good to have a
> 64bit one (addressing, etc) though it would demand changes in VMs. The
> last 64bit image I was able to mine dates from 2010.

It would; I think it's worth noting, though, that there's probably a pile of work underneath making it happen. There are also other considerations, like what you want out of a 64-bit Cog. Do you want a huge image or to add 64 bit integers as efficiently as possible? What's the goal?

The goal will tell us things. Should we go back to a vtable or keep on keeping on with direct pointers?

Etc...

>> - It was agreed that the a transition from our current server to a new
>> server is required, as the current server hardware cannot run Cog
>> (it's an old AMD Athlon without SSE2)
>> 
>> - We discussed Squeak’s market position. Ideas around it being a
>> “flexible platform” and how it gives a user “complete control” were
>> emphasized. Squeak has been the point of departure for many innovative
>> projects: RoarVM, Scratch, Croquet, Pharo, Etoys
> Market position depends on lots of things. I guess that although more
> than 10 years old, squeak is not mature enough for market. Important
> things like defining what is central to distribution image and what is
> not, establishing standards for things that are central to distribution
> image, documenting things, enhancing interfaces with OSes, etc.

Disagree. It's a hell of a lot more mature than Ruby, and I use that stuff all the time at work. Squeak isn't immature, it's just alien. People don't generally want to unlearn what they've learned. The challenges around marketing, IMHO, are mostly cultural. 

>> (big snip)


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list