[Vm-dev] An event driven Squeak VM
Andreas Raab
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Wed Nov 11 18:58:34 UTC 2009
Eliot Miranda wrote:
> Andreas counters that implementing the abstractions in the VM keeps them
> well-defined and free from meddling. But that runs counter to the
> philosophy of an open system and preventing inadvertent meddling is
> something Smalltalk has to do anyway (e.g. "Process should not be
> redefined, proceed to store over it"). The nice things about shooting
> oneself in the foot by meddling with a Smalltalk system are that a) it
> doesn't really do any harm and b) the debugging of it can be a great
> learning experience.
I disagree with both of these statements 100%. First, once you have
passed the first invalid pointer to some C function you will find out
the hard way that "not really doing any harm" means, oh well it'll crash
your image instead of raising a debugger. The consequence of this is
that for any serious development you will no longer want to do in-image
development; consider writing C code inside the running C app and then
have it core-dump every time you misspell something. Not exactly my
definition of "not really doing any harm". Secondly, wading through gobs
of platform specific code is only a great learning experience if you are
trying to learn platform specific stuff. Otherwise it's a useless
distraction that only gets into your way of seeing (and using) the
abstractions.
Cheers,
- Andreas
More information about the Vm-dev
mailing list