I bet Dan would love help from someone working on this!

Some of the old Smalltalks indeed run on SqueakJS. Only -72 and -78 have
their own Javascript VMs. And you could certainly make a VMMaker image
to play with Squeak in SqueakJS.

As for speed, I am hoping the new SqueakJS JIT will be competitive with the
Stack VM speed. It is more memory hungry though. Then again, ImageSegments
work so the different simulations would not all have to live in the same
static image.

–Vanessa–

On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 11:45 AM Thiede, Christoph <
Christoph.Thiede at student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de> wrote:

> Hi Marcel,
>
>
> if the Smalltalk Zoo was running inside SqueakJS, I would imagine to
> run all the single image examples of former Squeak/Smalltalk versions
> inside SqueakJS in a nested fashion. At least this would be necessary if
> users should be able to inspect and play with the implementations of these
> historic VM versions. At the moment, this might be possible by browsing the
> JavaScript implementation using Lively, but for Smalltalk VMs, I would
> prefer to browse the original Smalltalk/Slang implementations of the VM! 🤓
>
>
> If we did this in the regular OSVM, -- I guess -- we could simulate these
> VMs using VMMaker (but I did not try it out yet. Is it fast enough?). Given
> the current limitations of SqueakJS, I doubt that it would be able to
> support the VMMaker simulator in a satisfying speed.
>
>
> Thank you for the reference to the publication, I already had skimmed it a
> few months ago, interesting lecture. :-)
>
>
> Best,
>
> Christoph
> ------------------------------
> *Von:* Squeak-dev <squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org> im
> Auftrag von Taeumel, Marcel
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 26. April 2021 17:05:05
> *An:* squeak-dev
> *Betreff:* Re: [squeak-dev] Smalltalk Zoo not written in Smalltalk
>
> > I don't think that we could simulate older Squeak VMs inside SqueakJS.
>
> Well, the Smalltalk Zoo is basically powered by SqueakJS. What do you mean?
>
> Maybe this helps:
> "SqueakJS: a modern and practical smalltalk that runs in any browser"
> (Freudenberg et al., 2014)
> https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/2775052.2661100
>
> Best,
> Marcel
>
> Am 26.04.2021 13:24:00 schrieb Thiede, Christoph <
> christoph.thiede at student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de>:
>
> Hi Marcel,
>
>
> mainly because of its speed, I guess. I don't think that we could simulate
> older Squeak VMs inside SqueakJS. In general, I think the idea is cool, but
> wouldn't webasm be significantly faster?
>
>
> Best,
>
> Christoph
> ------------------------------
> *Von:* Squeak-dev <squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org> im
> Auftrag von Taeumel, Marcel
> *Gesendet:* Montag, 26. April 2021 08:34:56
> *An:* squeak-dev
> *Betreff:* Re: [squeak-dev] Smalltalk Zoo not written in Smalltalk
>
> Hi Christoph.
>
> > Is it time to make OSVM ready for webasm? Excited to hear your thoughts
> ...
>
> Why is SqueakJS (https://squeak.js.org/) not what you are looking for?
>
> Best,
> Marcel
>
> Am 25.04.2021 20:41:17 schrieb Thiede, Christoph <
> christoph.thiede at student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de>:
>
> Hi all,
>
>
> just a short and curious questions, but not guaranteed to be completely
> unprovoking. :-) Why is Smalltalk Zoo, the virtual exhibition which
> compares different milestones in the history of Squeak/Smalltalk, not
> implemented in Smalltalk itself but in JavaScript, a language which cannot
> compile itself, is quite the oppposite of Smalltalk in terms of clearness
> of expression, and escapes control of the actual application? While I love
> the idea in general, I think it's a shame that the zoo of a language that
> aims to be implemented in itself is not implemented in that language
> itself. :D
>
>
> Is it time to make OSVM ready for webasm? Excited to hear your thoughts ...
>
>
> Best,
>
> Christoph
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20210426/dc932254/attachment.html>