On 06.11.2013, at 08:57, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On 06 Nov 2013, at 08:53, Max Leske <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On 06.11.2013, at 08:05, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 05 Nov 2013, at 20:37, Mariano Martinez Peck <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi. From what I understand you removed the old Compiler but yet Opal does >>>> not support compiling. Also, #sourceCode was changed etc... >>>> That means that there is no way to see the decompiled string of a method? >>> >>> Yes. >>> >>>> Which means I cannot deploy and image without sources and then >>>> browse/debug/inspect/write pharoDebug.log etc because we don't have even >>>> the decompile string??? >>> >>> Exactly. But this is just temporary, .sources and .changes will go away in >>> Pharo4 and there will be just a .pharo4 image file. >> >> By “temporary” do you mean decompilation will come back? >> > No, we will have a high-level representation of Methods that replace (from > the standpoint of reflection) the incomplete bytecode representation, Ok, good to know. > >>> >>>> Serializing compiled methods is not fun either since we cannot decompile >>>> it after... >>>> >>> >>> You can embedd the source into the method before serialising. >> >> That means storing redundant information though (if the user is only >> interested in functionality) and that will increase file size, and >> serialization/materalzation time. So it’s not an ideal situation. > > The thing is that we can either not move or move step by step taking > (sometimes) into account that things are sub-optimal for a little while. I agree that that’s sometimes necessary. > > You can envision the current implementation as a peak on a map: it’s a very > good local optimum. But *Much* better is possible. Maybne a local metaphor: > We are in the Gurten now, you can > not reach the Eiger without going down for a while. Haha :) nice! That means we’ll have to figure something out for Fuel to work with not installed compiled methods in 3.0. Thanks for the explanation. > > Marcus
