On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 2:20 PM, David Barbour <dmbarb...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jun 12, 2011 at 1:07 AM, C. Scott Ananian <csc...@laptop.org> wrote: >> SELF did not have specialized bytecodes for these. See >> http://selflanguage.org/documentation/published/implementation.html >> --scott > > Why is this relevant? The opening question was about Squeak.
The self system included a full implementation of Smalltalk. Look, this isn't really a big deal. Squeak makes some architectural choices. We're discussing alternatives. It's certainly possible for Squeak to have used a different compilation strategy for constants. You could start with the architecture of SELF, for example, and make the tradeoff that you have a lot of "native methods" but gain the advantage of very few specialized bytecodes. You may prefer to have more specialized bytecodes and fewer "native methods", or some other point in the design space. There's no right or wrong here. I'm just puzzled why you seem to be insisting that no other alternative to Squeak's design is possible, when there are multiple existing systems which demonstrate the opposite. I've been continuing the discussion because it's been a nice opportunity to tip my hat to a lot of other people's excellent and interesting systems work, but I think it's time this thread ended now. --scott -- ( http://cscott.net ) _______________________________________________ fonc mailing list fonc@vpri.org http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
