> Le 12/1/16 17:58, Denis Kudriashov a écrit : > > Hi > > UFFI reminds me UFO which can be translated like Unified Foreign Objects. > And objects outside image look really like unidentified flying objects. It's > just address, blob of bytes and they fly outside smalltalk world > And it has some relation to Alien name. > But maybe it is too much funny name
I guess we are considering... Prefix: UFO (shorter) Package: Unified Foreign Objects (longer) Prefix: UFFI (longer) Package: UnifiedFFI (shorter) I like your thinking, but I have mixed feelings. Name is cool. The shorter prefix may be a benefit (though the "I" doesn't add much). But it implies more semantics as an external "object" than external blobs of memory (for example) for C libraries. I like "Unified" because it brings together parts of several implementations (if I understand correctly) and fixes a point of divergence at the VM level making it harder for limited resources to collaborate there. So in the end I think I prefer Unified. cheers -ben P.S. As I understand it, NativeBoost performs a bit better than UnifiedFFI, but it hindered cross-architecture compatibility - but UnifiedFFI essentially keeps the NativeBoost syntax - so I wonder if its technically feasible for NativeBoost to become a plug-in backend for UnifiedFFI, that could be used is special circumstances that super-performance is required only on supported platforms? > > 2016-01-12 16:55 GMT+01:00 Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com>: >> >> Hi, >> >> People has pointed (and they are right) that the name of the new FFI >> front-end is misleading. >> So yesterday I was talking with Stef and we think UnifiedFFI (or UFFI, for >> short) is a better name… and to keep packages prox. to regular FFI I was >> thinking on rename FFI-NB packages to FFI-Unified… but maybe is better just >> to rename them as UFFI or UnifiedFFI… >> what do you think? >> >> Esteban >> >> > >
