[Vm-dev] [Pharo-dev] Squeak and Pharo speed differences

[Robert]

Hi Shaping,

On 5/16/20 8:47 AM, Shaping wrote:

> Can you tell me about those efforts?  I know the VM is one, maybe the biggest.  What else do Squeak folks work on?
>
>  I also understand why the developers of the new Pharo preferences tree did not like to invest the same effort in Squeak. What incentive would they have?
>
> Make all features (GUIs/frameworks) loadable into a new, mostly empty image.

Andso, here we have the biggest challenge to doing such sharing. You say all features should be loadable into either image. The issue is that Pharo has driven forwards in creating new load formats, such as Tonel. I tried to load up the Tonel format, but failed. I couldn't get distracted from my core work.

NO EFFORTS have been made to have Squeak able to load such formats, and the Pharo folks have deprecated the existing Montecello load format, from a long time in Squeak. In particular, it is not possible to load a Monticello Configuration Map in Pharo and Squeak can't load the newer formats Pharo has created. So there is no commonality of load systems between Squeak/Pharo. It totally sucks. That is step number one to having features co-loadable, common load systems. I recall someone from the Pharo side being disparaging to the Monticello load format, so there is no interested in making features cross-image. NONE. ZERO! It is a hard fork. So sad. :(

K, r

--
Kindly,
Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/attachments/20200516/f85177c0/attachment.html>