vanessa at codefrau.net
Fri Jan 8 17:17:20 UTC 2021
So with regard to the VM and in particular the byte code set, “V3” is
completely wrong? Should we rename the Encoder subclass and related
methods to something reasonable then?
I believe Eliot introduced these names, what do you think?
On Tue, Jan 5, 2021 at 7:03 PM Jecel Assumpcao Jr <jecel at merlintec.com>
> > Reading the code I again noticed "Squeak V3" as name for the old bytecode
> > set. Always wanted to know: Where does the "V3" nomenclature come from?
> It was the format for the planned Squeak 3.0:
> > What's V1 and V2?
> They were never named, but you could consider the original Squeak to be
> V1 and the one with Morphic in it to be V2, but I don't think there are
> any significant changes between them.
> But please note that the V3 effort was abandoned, so in practice VI3 is
> essentially the original Squeak image format.
> > And should we consider Sista to be V4, or treat it as completely
> There was a VI4 effort, also abandoned, that is linked from that page:
> But Eliot's efforts to add closures did get adopted (third time's the
> charm!) and yet it only got new image version numbers and not a new
> name. So it is a VI3 format that doesn't match the previous meaning of
> the term. Since none of those matter any more it is just odd but doesn't
> actually cause any confusion.
> What is confusing is the use of the term both for the image format (VI3
> x Spur) and the bytecode set (VI3 x Sista).
> In any case, the 3 in VI3 was originally associated with the transition
> from Squeak 2 to Squeak 3 and makes no sense in this Squeak 5 (soon 6)
> -- Jecel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Squeak-dev