Le 23 août 07 à 07:27, Yen-Ju Chen a écrit : > On 8/21/07, David Chisnall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On 21 Aug 2007, at 12:24, Nicolas Roard wrote: >> >>> Io is neat, and we had a bridge that allowed us to write >>> applications >>> before -- so it'd be conceivable to use it. But... we don't really >>> care about using a io third party libraries that io gives, and >>> keeping >>> track to Io seems to be a certain amount of work (considering it's >>> broken atm). >>> Something using StepTalk Smalltalk implemention would be trivial to >>> do; but it's not the fastest thing ever, and we'd only care anyway >>> about the smalltalk implementation in that case, not the full >>> steptalk. That left David's implementation, and imho that'd be the >>> better suited thing for us: >>> - small, only provides what we need >>> - will be reasonably fast with JIT >>> - and fully integrated to the objc runtime >> >> Quentin and I have both been abusing the Objective-C runtime for a >> little while, and come to similar conclusions; that it's almost >> possible to use it to support a prototype-based language, but not >> quite. I've written a category for NSObject that gives you about 40% >> of what you need, and Quentin has used a different approach which >> also seems to work well. >> >> When I have finished the Smalltalk JIT (which I will get back to when >> I have finished poking Composite for a bit), I plan on taking the GNU >> Objective-C runtime apart, and modifying the object structure to >> allow methods and ivars to be added on a per-object basis. This will >> give us a base that allows prototype-based languages to be supported >> on the runtime, which will make it possible for something like Io to >> be used without a bridge. > > I agree mostly on the SmallTalk/StepTalk part. > That is definitely something we should have. > Another thing we should have is something like Io, > and as suggested, we don't need its 3rd party libraries, only the > core. > I also feel it is too much to rewrite the Objective-C runtime > just for Io language. > So the best approach I can think is to replace the basic data > structure (string, array, etc) in Io with Foundation but keep the vm.
This sounds more reasonable and could be done without too much trouble I think. iirc Io has support to run standalone customized vm inside the base vm. > If it works out, we will have two different flavors of script > language, > which is pretty enough for most of the cases. Sure. > It is just the language bridge (Io <-> objc and SmallTalk <->objc). > There is another aspect of scripting bridge as in OS X 10.5. > The main purpose is to expose any framework to the scripting > language > so that script language can dynamically load framework instead of > linking to them. > It is pretty much what StepTalk does and is independent from the > script language. > So I guess we will stick with StepTalk framework for that. Probably, unless someone decides to simplify StepTalk and write a simpler version of it. Cheers, Quentin. _______________________________________________ Etoile-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/etoile-discuss
