On Sat, Oct 17, 2015 at 2:25 AM, Robert Withers <[email protected]> wrote: > Yes, exactly. I do realize I was consciously changing that effort > synchronization order.
I see 64-bit being higher priority than multi-threaded for the wider community. Dealing with larger in-Image data opens the door to more corporate project/funding opportunities. Also simplifying the install on modern Linux platforms without requiring additional 386 libraries will help acceptance there. > It is my humble opinion, without really knowing, that 64-bit would have to be > redone after the MTVM completes. I would assume it was the other way around. Presuming that Eliot has sponsors influencing his priorities, it seems given that 64-bits will happen first. I would guess any MTVM development on the old vm would then need to be reworked. > I was doing so with the idea in mind that I and others > might dig into working on the VM, for threading support, while Eliot > maintains focus on 64-bits...a tall order, I know. The usual downside of splitting resources applies. There are not that many "others" and maybe they would be drawn away from helping with the 64-bit vm. If the 64-bit vm goes slower for lack of resources then your footing for MTVM will shifting for a longer time. You may ultimately get where you want to go faster by helping with the 64-bit vm. The rapport built with other vm devs from working on 64-bit might could then be applied to MTVM. (Of course, its your free time, so you should pursue what interests you.) > I was barely familiar with the VM, slang, interpreter, it years ago... > I'm totally unfamiliar with cog. The experience you gain from working beside Esteban and Eliot on 64-bit Cog/Spur could then be applied to a MTVM. btw, you may find these threads interesting... * http://lists.pharo.org/pipermail/pharo-dev_lists.pharo.org/2015-April/108648.html * http://forum.world.st/Copy-on-write-for-a-multithreaded-VM-td4837905.html cheers -ben >I believe another item on that list ought to be modernizing slang. So > many big items! > > Robert > > > > On 10/16/2015 12:48 PM, Stephan Eggermont wrote: >> >> >> On 16-10-15 14:05, Robert Withers wrote: >>> >>> Because of that assumption I've made and without the responsibilities >>> you have, Esteban, but recognizing modernizing NB to FFI, my desired >>> list is: >> >> >> I would expect the least total effort to be needed by keeping the work >> of Esteban and Eliot as much as possible aligned. That is what Esteban's >> list achieves. >> >> Stephan >> >> >
