Yes, the New compiler is not better. However, I think the New Compiler is the right direction to pursue.
After fighting with it for some months to make the Closures work in it I can tell you that I learn a great deal from it, painfully :) . But I now have a pretty good idea of what it is required to have a modularized compiler with more suitable abstraction for this particular domain. I implemented many tests and I have to implement a lot more. Then, I believe that by expressing ourselves through these tests we will be able to modify the compiler to make it look the way we want. At least that is my plan with the New compiler. Cheers, Jorge On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Lukas Renggli <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I'll try to build the tests and come up with a better solution. >> >> You what I would love to spend 2/3 weeks just coding in the new compiler and >> making sure >> that it has the right abstractions/messages to deal with issue like that. > > The problem is that the New Compiler is not really in a better state > than the old compiler. Of course it has more objects and is much > easier to extend, but all in all it is a mess too. This is mostly due > to the fact that the system below it changed quite a bit in the past > years (pragmas, properties, closures, primitives, new bytecodes, ...) > and that the New Compiler had to be patched and changed quite heavily > to accommodate these new requirements that it was not designed for. > Maintaining and fixing the New Compiler got so extremely expensive > that it is questionable if this is still a viable platform? Ask Jorge > and Marcus. > > Lukas > > -- > Lukas Renggli > http://www.lukas-renggli.ch > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
