On 7 May 2011 08:54, Douglas Brebner <[email protected]> wrote: > On 07/05/2011 01:06, Igor Stasenko wrote: >> >> On 6 May 2011 23:45, Stefan Marr<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On 06 May 2011, at 19:08, Igor Stasenko wrote: >>> >>>> How about CogVM? Should we stop developing it? Or we should start >>>> supporting both? And can we do that without too much pain? Give us the >>>> idea. >>> >>> It is all about adopting the ideas, and I could collaboration on that, >>> but I can't do that work. >>> The only problem I see is that there does not seem to be a business case >>> for a CogVM with parallel Smalltalk Process execution. >>> >> I can tell you more: there is no business cases for VM(s) which can do >> manycore :) >> At least, to my perception, there is not much pressure from people >> (even on mainstream languages) to leverage this technology. >> I thought it is very close to come into our houses, but no.. it stuck >> somewhere on marketplace, buying a better clothes. >> > > I have the bad feeling that there will continue to be no business case for > manycore VMs (or serious concurrency in general) until we hit a wall at > which point they'll suddenly go from uninteresting to desperately essential > and any language not able to make the jump will be in big trouble. > > Besides, wasn't part of Smalltalk all about leading the way rather than > following behind? >
To lead, you need to have plenty of resources at your disposal. Human and material ones. -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
