Igor Stasenko wrote: > > NB Pros: > * as well as for plugin, you can create new > functionality that doesn't exist in any library > * no need to recompile plugin/VM when you making a changes > * all your code is distributed with the Smalltalk code, > but there can be > complications with platforms > * fast - faster than any FFI implementation written in > C, and as fast as plugin primitive or even faster > > Cons: > * ?unsafe? - you have to provide a safety layers > (But hey, you have to deal with same sorts of stuff, > when writing plugin. No magician workers there) > > * harder to write > Yes, its harder than plain smalltalk - true. > But i can't say, that writing an assembler is harder than writing a > plugin's slang code. > If you writing a plugin, you should have an expertise, in VM internals > and how to build VM , etc etc > and if you writing an native code, you should have an expertise in > assembler as well as VM internals. > > So, they are different, and definitely much harder comparing to plain > smalltalk code, > but which one is easier is hard to tell. >
Cool, I'm glad you wrote that. I've been following your posts about NB, and from that quick summary, I already have a much better understanding of where it fits into the "external code" picture. Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/FFI-Documentation-tp2225148p2225585.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
