On 06/05/2011 22:23, Stefan Marr wrote:
(and here we go again...)
On 06 May 2011, at 18:55, Miguel Cobá wrote:
El vie, 06-05-2011 a las 18:32 +0200, Stefan Marr escribió:
Well, I think my work on the RoarVM is some contribution, no? Perhaps, I would
be more interested in Pharo if it would actually run nicely on the RoarVM, but
I am stuck with a Squeak 3.x MVC image for my day to day work. And without
anyone from the community approaching the work to make Pharo thread-safe that
won't change. It is nice to change the world with Pharo, but the future is
multi/manycore and Pharo does not support it. Ah, and the day has just 24h so
don't expect anything from me beside the VM work, thats already enough to keep
a whole team busy.
I found your post very contradicting and without internal consistency.
You don't care about smalltalk but are creating a vm should run
smalltalk (squeak or pharo) in multiple core. Don't get it. Or you care
that you dedicate time to it or you don't care and don't know why you
build a multicore vm for a system you don't care (maybe the money, the
papers, the citations, don't know)
I am interested in VMs, so why do I need to care about the language on top?
Actually, I do research in how to support all kind of different languages on
top of the same VM, because there is not a single language that is the ultimate
answer to all problems. That is why I do not care about any particular language.
Just look at the JVM. How much of its technology was developed in the pure Java
context? Not a lot. Most was actually conceived for Smalltalk.
As long as the languages have some commonalities and are not based on
graph-reduction like Haskell, then they usually don't require a completely new
designed VM, but a nice set of common abstractions. So why, as a researcher,
should I care about Smalltalk? Smalltalk is not the final answer, and will
never be. Neither is any other single language.
Smalltalk the language no. Smalltalk the infinitely malleable
environment? That's another question :)
