> 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
>>
>>
>
>

Reply via email to