Choice of image for OMeta?

> Given the choice of 3.8, or 3.9, do folks have a general suggestion? I've
> heard there were some "sweet" images over the years. I'm of course going to
> be unable to resist loading OMeta into a trunk image; I have low
> expectations for success with that, but I'm kind of interested in seeing
> what the difference is in the performance of the Javascript implementation
> when Cog is at the bottom of the stack. So I was thinking that I'd get it
> loaded into an older image, and try to get to know it there.
>
> --
> Casey Ransberger
>

> According to
> http://tinlizzie.org/ometa/
> it works in both 3.8 and 3.9.
>
> I think both are fine and I am interested in reading about your
> experience of loading it into Squeak 4.1trunk.
>
> --Hannes
>
> More about OMeta
> http://www.tinlizzie.org/~awarth/
> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/ometa
>
> Do you have other links?
>
>
> On 8/25/10, Casey Ransberger <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Given the choice of 3.8, or 3.9, do folks have a general suggestion? I've
>> heard there were some "sweet" images over the years. I'm of course going
>> to
>> be unable to resist loading OMeta into a trunk image; I have low
>> expectations for success with that, but I'm kind of interested in seeing
>> what the difference is in the performance of the Javascript
>> implementation
>> when Cog is at the bottom of the stack. So I was thinking that I'd get it
>> loaded into an older image, and try to get to know it there.
>>
>> --
>> Casey Ransberger
>>
>

> Thank you Michael for your encouragement to just try it.
>
> 1) Add http repository www.squeaksource.com/OMeta in the Monticello Browser
>
> 2a) Load the package 'OMeta2-preload'
> 2b) Load the package 'OMeta2'
> 2c) Load the package 'OMeta2-postload'
>
> 3) Evaluate the example
> OMeta2Examples match: 3 with: #fact
>
> I did this in the image http://ftp.squeak.org/trunk/Squeak4.2-10382-alpha.zip
>
> Thank to Hans-Martin Mosner, I assume for making this a very smooth experience.
>
> --Hannes
>
>
> Follow up question to Casey: Where do you get your JavaScript interpreter from?
>
> ===================
>
> www.squeaksource.com/OMeta2 refers to
> http://tinlizzie.org/~awarth/ometa/ometa2.html
> for more information
>
> There is a note about
>
> Known Issues
> # This implementation uses Squeak's array literals ({...}), so it
> won't work on other flavors of Smalltalk. I'll fix this over the next
> few days.
> # The Squeak debugger complains about OMeta rules — syntax error —
> because it doesn't know about OMeta syntax. I have a plan to fix this,
> but it's part of a bigger project (the OmniDebugger) which will take
> some time to implement. Please let me know if you know of any quick
> fixes.
>
> Is this info still up to date?
>
> On 8/25/10, Hannes Hirzel <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> According to
>> http://tinlizzie.org/ometa/
>> it works in both 3.8 and 3.9.
>>
>> I think both are fine and I am interested in reading about your
>> experience of loading it into Squeak 4.1trunk.
>>
>> --Hannes
>>
>> More about OMeta
>> http://www.tinlizzie.org/~awarth/
>> http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/ometa
>>
>> Do you have other links?
>>
>>
>> On 8/25/10, Casey Ransberger <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>> Given the choice of 3.8, or 3.9, do folks have a general suggestion? I've
>>> heard there were some "sweet" images over the years. I'm of course going
>>> to
>>> be unable to resist loading OMeta into a trunk image; I have low
>>> expectations for success with that, but I'm kind of interested in seeing
>>> what the difference is in the performance of the Javascript
>>> implementation
>>> when Cog is at the bottom of the stack. So I was thinking that I'd get it
>>> loaded into an older image, and try to get to know it there.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Casey Ransberger
>>>
>>
>

> Am 25.08.2010 19:16, schrieb Casey Ransberger:
>> It's a .sar on the OMeta home page.
>>
>>
> That one is pretty old. You should really be using the one that I put on
> SqueakMap (which loads without problems).
>
> Cheers,
> Hans-Martin
>

> On 8/25/10, Hans-Martin Mosner<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>> Am 25.08.2010 19:16, schrieb Casey Ransberger:
>>> It's a .sar on the OMeta home page.
>>>
>>>
>> That one is pretty old. You should really be using the one that I put on
>> SqueakMap (which loads without problems).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Hans-Martin
>>
> There is no OMeta2 SAR file on Squeakmap. There is OMeta but it seems to be old.
> http://map.squeak.org/package/dea7935d-2497-45df-936c-69f0daedd136
>
> Squeak 4.1 is not mentioned.

> On 2010/08/26 16:16, Hannes Hirzel wrote:
>> On 8/25/10, Hans-Martin Mosner<[hidden email]>  wrote:
>>> Am 25.08.2010 19:16, schrieb Casey Ransberger:
>>>> It's a .sar on the OMeta home page.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That one is pretty old. You should really be using the one that I put on
>>> SqueakMap (which loads without problems).
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Hans-Martin
>>>
>> There is no OMeta2 SAR file on Squeakmap. There is OMeta but it seems to
>> be old.
>> http://map.squeak.org/package/dea7935d-2497-45df-936c-69f0daedd136
>>
>> Squeak 4.1 is not mentioned.
>
> Maybe Hans-Martin meant SqueakSOURCE?:
> http://www.squeaksource.com/OMeta.html
>
> frank
>
>