[Vm-dev] Cog: A question about: setInterruptCheckChain()

[Andreas Raab]

On 9/29/2010 1:03 PM, Eliot Miranda wrote:
> I think it /is/, and you shouldn't allow your disinclination for the FFI
> approach blind you to the fact that one way of keeping the VM small is
> to produce a really strong flexible FFI that supports threading and
> callbacks and to implement interfaces above the line.  Do you seriously
> believe things like the ODBC connect should be implemented in plugins?

Absolutely. Memory safety being the prime reason.

> In the case of event callbacks its a different issue.  The current event
> queue abstraction is broken in that it prevents Smalltalk code from
> answering questions asked through events such as WM_QUERYENDSESSION
> because the VM is forced to queue events, and hence can only provide a
> default answer in the window proc.  So there are areas where having
> proper callbacks is required to be able to integrate properly with the
> host operating system.

Please. The issue here is that our event mechanism is a bit simplistic 
but the Android VM is a great example of how to deal with these issues 
properly. Sure, callbacks could address this too, but claiming *only* 
callbacks can address this is simply wrong.

> I don't disagree with what you say about plugins, or about maintaining
> cross-platform abstractions in the VM for core functionality that is
> common across platforms, but I think its clear one needs true callbacks,
> and that at least for integrating with the GUI this is the best way to
> implement it.

A solution that inherently implies exposure of raw pointers to users 
isn't what I would call the "best" solution. That said, I'm not arguing 
against callbacks - when you need them you need them. And there are 
practical situations where it's incredibly handy to have them. And yet, 
would I design the system so that it depends at its core on such 
facilities? Hell, no, because in addition to being memory-unsafe, 
porting an FFI is *much* harder than porting a bit of C support code.

>     It really is a matter of where you want to deal with certain aspects
>     of the system. I prefer to deal with that level of stuff in a plugin
>     via C because:
>     + it provides a way to do ensure memory safety
>
> there's nothing in plugins per-se to maintain memory safety.  A mistake
> in a plugin is as destructive as a mistake in an FFI call.  In either
> case a wrapper around a particular call can validate and provide safety.

In theory, yes. In practice such wrappers *do* exist in plugins and they 
do *not* exist in FFI calls. Why? Good question. Probably because people 
understand that in C land there are more constraints and they are 
mentally "set up" to keep an eye on the constraints and to make sure the 
incoming stuff is okay.

>     + it provides a way to provide abstractions
>
> - so does Smalltalk, and t least in SMalltalk we have inheritance to
> enable us to express cross-platform APIs in abstract classes and map
> these down onto particular platforms in concrete subclasses.  This is
> /far better/ than the sprawling mess that is the platforms tree in the VM.

In theory yes. In practice, who knows. Having looked at some Smalltalks 
that expose all the platform details (like Dolphin) it seems to me that 
the equation of "platform FFI code * number of platforms" will be /far 
more/ of a sprawling mess. Which is probably why (unless I'm mistaken in 
which case I'll appreciate a correction) precisely none of the 
cross-platform Smalltalks do that.

>     + the code is faster to write and debug in C
>
> this is debatable.

Hardly. Let's start with "#include <windows.h>" (or whatever platform 
stuff you happen to need). You're losing right there. The problem is 
that the system isn't set up to seamlessly interact with C. Even if 
you've got some auto-magic header file importer that creates structs and 
defines and stuff, as long as it takes more than, i.e.,

winMessageBox: contents title: title
	<include: 'windows.h'>
	MessageBox(NULL, contents, title, MB_OK + MB_ICONWARNING).

you're going to lose because it takes so much longer to get to the point 
of actually writing the code you're trying to write.

Secondly, you *really* need to try the latest Visual Studio and play 
with its debugger - I was blown away while debugging SqueakSSL when I 
hit a typical NULL pointer, fixed the code in my plugin DLL, continued 
in VS and the underlying Squeak KEPT RUNNING! Holy crap. This stuff has 
come a looooong way.

> In the VW FFI with the ability to catch exceptions
> and pass them back up (doesn't always work, a bad emory corruption may
> crash the entire system) makes thing easier.  But low-level debugging is
> painful in general.
>
>     + access to facilities (threads, interrupts, atomicity) not
>     available otherwise
>
> Again, a strong FFI provides at least some of these facilities.  Not
> everything can be done through the FFI, but a lot can be done, and
> elegantly and extensibly, by Smalltalk programmers, not a few VM
> specialists.

I call BS. The reality is that one needs to know three kinds of things, 
only one of which would be helped by using the FFI:

1) The "mechanics" of writing a plugin, i.e., slang and compilation. 
This is the part where the FFI would help, but so would better APIs for 
marshaling. While it's "cool" that one can run slang plugins in Squeak 
it is also completely and utterly *useless* when it comes to integrating 
platform specific stuff and having to deal with Slang, VMMaker and the 
awful build setups, and then -on top of that- the actual work you're 
trying to do is just a bit too much.

2) Understanding the rules of interfacing the external world, i.e., when 
can pointers be kept, what does GC do to your objects etc. None of this 
is helped by using the FFI.

3) Understanding the actual domain code. Again, none of this is helped 
by the FFI (to the contrary because nobody will find examples for the 
weird Smalltalk selectors we use on the web and people will in turn not 
know where to find the actual value for MB_OK or somesuch).

Basically, the assumption that *all* the difficulty is in writing the 
marshaling code is nonsense. There is some of it, true, but that is 
entirely our fault for providing poor integration APIs.

>     On the downside, there is:
>     - it's harder to modify for people who don't know C and are not set
>     up to build a plugin
>     - it's often aimed at the smallest common denominator (though not
>     necessarily)
>
> - it is a far more fixed interface that is far harder to evolve

Yes, but when you call it "stable" instead of "fixed" and "robust" 
instead of "harder to evolve" it becomes a plus :-)

Cheers,
   - Andreas


>     Cheers,
>       - Andreas
>
>
>         On the other hand, a VM providing a larger de facto immutable API:
>         - somehow is more secure (a guaranty we can run very old images in
>         very new OSes).
>         - can maintain the illusion that despite the efforts of OS and
>         hardware designers to make it ever more complex, a single person can
>         still understand (almost) the whole system.
>         - avoid the necessity to embed knowledge of dozens of different
>         variants of different OSes in your image.
>
>         Of course, the complexity still exists under the carpet... When I
>         contemplate all the unecessary complex knowledge from those
>         beautiful
>         configure/cmake scripts and macros, I'm not convinced all this cruft
>         will be easier to modify in Smalltalk than it is in C world.
>
>         I perfectly understand too the desire of a VM maintainer to lighten
>         the burden ;) though.
>
>         Nicolas
>
>         2010/9/29 Eliot Miranda<eliot.miranda at gmail.com
>         <mailto:eliot.miranda at gmail.com>>:
>
>
>
>
>             On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 10:22 AM, Andreas
>             Raab<andreas.raab at gmx.de <mailto:andreas.raab at gmx.de>>  wrote:
>
>
>                 On 9/29/2010 9:36 AM, Eliot Miranda wrote:
>
>
>                         See the recordMouseEvent() and its friends
>                     (sqNextEventPut,
>                         eventBuffer[1024] ...) in sqWin32Window, for
>                     better understanding my
>                         point :)
>
>
>                     Which makes my point well.  These are simply
>                     maintaining a queue.  If
>                     one has callbacks then the bulk of the Windows event
>                     handling system can
>                     be lifted up into the image.  This is what Vassili
>                     Bykov did in Newspeak
>                     above my Alien callbacks.  In Newspeak the Windows
>                     MainWndProc is a
>                     callback:
>
>
>                 Thus losing any level of platform abstraction. A bad
>                 trade-off, IMO.
>
>
>             The platform abstraction merely moves from the VM to classes
>             in the image.  But it does mean that one can properly
>             implement Windows event semantics (things like query quit
>             events) that the queue prevents.  And it means that the VM
>             gets simpler and complexity is handled by better facilities
>             (in Smalltalk with its many advantages for creating and
>             maintaining abstractions with concrete variant implementations).
>             But you and I have had this discussion a number of times and
>             I take your point about the VM maintaining a black-box
>             abstraction boundary whereas the in-image implementation is
>             in theory porous.  As I've said before this doesn't strike
>             me as that important when Smalltalk has had boundary
>             violators such as instVarAt:[put:] for ever and they are
>             rarely abused.  If one were to implement a native GUI event
>             interface in Smalltalk using callbacks one would have to
>             police the abstraction boundary.  But that's easily done,
>             and there are other benefits
>             - the VM, being simpler, gets more longevity since changing
>             the event interface doesn't imply a VM change
>             - the system, having native interfaces, can support each
>             platform's facilities in full instead of providing the
>             lowest common denominator
>             So IMO it is a good trade-off.
>             best
>             Eliot
>
>
>                 Cheers,
>                   - Andreas
>
>
>
>
>
>