Cog/JIT/Stack/VM .. executable names

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
10 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Cog/JIT/Stack/VM .. executable names

Igor Stasenko
 
Hello,

there is an explosion of different kinds of VM we're building today..
and i think it would be nice to use different names for them.
Currently i am using following naming scheme:

- VMs based on StackInterpreter:
  StackVM

- VMs with JIT
  Cog

- VMs with JIT + MT
  CogMT

i am open for suggestions of giving better/proper names.

Maybe for end-user it is not important to use different names
(squeak.. yeah.. this is squeak.. who cares)..
but when testing VMs and/or opening older images with proper VMs it
turns into a puzzle game.
Also, i think that Cog is good name and executables deserve to carry
this name (instead of squeak or croquet).
That's why i'm not questioning whether new VMs should use different
names. I am only questioning which names we should use :)


--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cog/JIT/Stack/VM .. executable names

stephane ducasse-2
 
what means MT?

Stef
On Mar 19, 2011, at 11:03 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:

>
> Hello,
>
> there is an explosion of different kinds of VM we're building today..
> and i think it would be nice to use different names for them.
> Currently i am using following naming scheme:
>
> - VMs based on StackInterpreter:
>  StackVM
>
> - VMs with JIT
>  Cog
>
> - VMs with JIT + MT
>  CogMT
>
> i am open for suggestions of giving better/proper names.
>
> Maybe for end-user it is not important to use different names
> (squeak.. yeah.. this is squeak.. who cares)..
> but when testing VMs and/or opening older images with proper VMs it
> turns into a puzzle game.
> Also, i think that Cog is good name and executables deserve to carry
> this name (instead of squeak or croquet).
> That's why i'm not questioning whether new VMs should use different
> names. I am only questioning which names we should use :)
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cog/JIT/Stack/VM .. executable names

Mariano Martinez Peck
 


On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 9:38 AM, stephane ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:

what means MT?

Multi Threaded or similar
 

Stef
On Mar 19, 2011, at 11:03 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:

>
> Hello,
>
> there is an explosion of different kinds of VM we're building today..
> and i think it would be nice to use different names for them.
> Currently i am using following naming scheme:
>
> - VMs based on StackInterpreter:
>  StackVM
>
> - VMs with JIT
>  Cog
>
> - VMs with JIT + MT
>  CogMT
>
> i am open for suggestions of giving better/proper names.
>
> Maybe for end-user it is not important to use different names
> (squeak.. yeah.. this is squeak.. who cares)..
> but when testing VMs and/or opening older images with proper VMs it
> turns into a puzzle game.
> Also, i think that Cog is good name and executables deserve to carry
> this name (instead of squeak or croquet).
> That's why i'm not questioning whether new VMs should use different
> names. I am only questioning which names we should use :)
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cog/JIT/Stack/VM .. executable names

stephane ducasse-2

Yes I got it after :)

On Mar 20, 2011, at 10:57 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 9:38 AM, stephane ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> what means MT?
>
> Multi Threaded or similar
>  
>
> Stef
> On Mar 19, 2011, at 11:03 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > there is an explosion of different kinds of VM we're building today..
> > and i think it would be nice to use different names for them.
> > Currently i am using following naming scheme:
> >
> > - VMs based on StackInterpreter:
> >  StackVM
> >
> > - VMs with JIT
> >  Cog
> >
> > - VMs with JIT + MT
> >  CogMT
> >
> > i am open for suggestions of giving better/proper names.
> >
> > Maybe for end-user it is not important to use different names
> > (squeak.. yeah.. this is squeak.. who cares)..
> > but when testing VMs and/or opening older images with proper VMs it
> > turns into a puzzle game.
> > Also, i think that Cog is good name and executables deserve to carry
> > this name (instead of squeak or croquet).
> > That's why i'm not questioning whether new VMs should use different
> > names. I am only questioning which names we should use :)
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cog/JIT/Stack/VM .. executable names

Levente Uzonyi-2
In reply to this post by Igor Stasenko
 
On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Igor Stasenko wrote:

>
> Hello,
>
> there is an explosion of different kinds of VM we're building today..
> and i think it would be nice to use different names for them.

Sounds good.

> Currently i am using following naming scheme:
>
> - VMs based on StackInterpreter:
>  StackVM
>
> - VMs with JIT
>  Cog
>
> - VMs with JIT + MT
>  CogMT
>
> i am open for suggestions of giving better/proper names.

What about sticking VM to the end of each of them? Like here:
StackVM, CogVM, CogMTVM, and InterpreterVM

>
> Maybe for end-user it is not important to use different names
> (squeak.. yeah.. this is squeak.. who cares)..

It also helps identifying the VM in bug reports.


Levente

> but when testing VMs and/or opening older images with proper VMs it
> turns into a puzzle game.
> Also, i think that Cog is good name and executables deserve to carry
> this name (instead of squeak or croquet).
> That's why i'm not questioning whether new VMs should use different
> names. I am only questioning which names we should use :)
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cog/JIT/Stack/VM .. executable names

Eliot Miranda-2
 


On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Levente Uzonyi <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Igor Stasenko wrote:


Hello,

there is an explosion of different kinds of VM we're building today..
and i think it would be nice to use different names for them.

Sounds good.


Currently i am using following naming scheme:

- VMs based on StackInterpreter:
 StackVM

- VMs with JIT
 Cog

- VMs with JIT + MT
 CogMT

i am open for suggestions of giving better/proper names.

What about sticking VM to the end of each of them? Like here:
StackVM, CogVM, CogMTVM, and InterpreterVM

I like the VM suffix.  But what would really float my boat would be if InterpreterVM was called ContextVM.  Taking Igor's list anew


-Interpreted VMs using contexts based on Interpreter
  ContextVM

- Interpreted VMs using a stack organization based on StackInterpreter:
 StackVM

- Co-Interpreter+JIT VMs using a stack organization based on CoInterpreter:
 CogVM

- Co-Interpreter+JIT VMs using a stack organization and with multi-threading FFI support based on CoInterpreterMT
 CogMTVM




Maybe for end-user it is not important to use different names
(squeak.. yeah.. this is squeak.. who cares)..

It also helps identifying the VM in bug reports.


Levente


but when testing VMs and/or opening older images with proper VMs it
turns into a puzzle game.
Also, i think that Cog is good name and executables deserve to carry
this name (instead of squeak or croquet).
That's why i'm not questioning whether new VMs should use different
names. I am only questioning which names we should use :)


--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cog/JIT/Stack/VM .. executable names

Igor Stasenko

On 21 March 2011 05:45, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Levente Uzonyi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> there is an explosion of different kinds of VM we're building today..
>>> and i think it would be nice to use different names for them.
>>
>> Sounds good.
>>
>>> Currently i am using following naming scheme:
>>>
>>> - VMs based on StackInterpreter:
>>>  StackVM
>>>
>>> - VMs with JIT
>>>  Cog
>>>
>>> - VMs with JIT + MT
>>>  CogMT
>>>
>>> i am open for suggestions of giving better/proper names.
>>
>> What about sticking VM to the end of each of them? Like here:
>> StackVM, CogVM, CogMTVM, and InterpreterVM
>
> I like the VM suffix.  But what would really float my boat would be if InterpreterVM was called ContextVM.  Taking Igor's list anew
>
> -Interpreted VMs using contexts based on Interpreter
>   ContextVM
> - Interpreted VMs using a stack organization based on StackInterpreter:
>  StackVM
>
> - Co-Interpreter+JIT VMs using a stack organization based on CoInterpreter:
>  CogVM
>
> - Co-Interpreter+JIT VMs using a stack organization and with multi-threading FFI support based on CoInterpreterMT
>  CogMTVM

Good.
except that we don't have configs to build ContextVM.



--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cog/JIT/Stack/VM .. executable names

EstebanLM

Well... I need to make a paraphrasis of one of my childhood heroes here: "I fight for the users!" :)

I think so much names and versions are misleading for end users (of course, it is useful for us)... but I think end users will have a hard travel if we start to rename everything.
I think all the new vms are "Cog", not matter if stack, jit, or jit-mt. More important: jit-mt is the evolution of jit version, so nobody will use the older once mt is tested enough.

So, I rather name the vms:

Cog Stack (or something more appealing for end users like "Cog Universal")
Cog 1.0
Cog 2.0

... or something like that

(I know, I'm minority in this, but I needed to express my point of view, just for the record :) )

best,
Esteban

El 21/03/2011, a las 4:48a.m., Igor Stasenko escribió:

>
> On 21 March 2011 05:45, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 8:18 PM, Levente Uzonyi <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>> there is an explosion of different kinds of VM we're building today..
>>>> and i think it would be nice to use different names for them.
>>>
>>> Sounds good.
>>>
>>>> Currently i am using following naming scheme:
>>>>
>>>> - VMs based on StackInterpreter:
>>>>  StackVM
>>>>
>>>> - VMs with JIT
>>>>  Cog
>>>>
>>>> - VMs with JIT + MT
>>>>  CogMT
>>>>
>>>> i am open for suggestions of giving better/proper names.
>>>
>>> What about sticking VM to the end of each of them? Like here:
>>> StackVM, CogVM, CogMTVM, and InterpreterVM
>>
>> I like the VM suffix.  But what would really float my boat would be if InterpreterVM was called ContextVM.  Taking Igor's list anew
>>
>> -Interpreted VMs using contexts based on Interpreter
>>   ContextVM
>> - Interpreted VMs using a stack organization based on StackInterpreter:
>>  StackVM
>>
>> - Co-Interpreter+JIT VMs using a stack organization based on CoInterpreter:
>>  CogVM
>>
>> - Co-Interpreter+JIT VMs using a stack organization and with multi-threading FFI support based on CoInterpreterMT
>>  CogMTVM
>
> Good.
> except that we don't have configs to build ContextVM.
>
>
>
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cog/JIT/Stack/VM .. executable names

Igor Stasenko
 
On 21 March 2011 13:15, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote:

>
> Well... I need to make a paraphrasis of one of my childhood heroes here: "I fight for the users!" :)
>
> I think so much names and versions are misleading for end users (of course, it is useful for us)... but I think end users will have a hard travel if we start to rename everything.
> I think all the new vms are "Cog", not matter if stack, jit, or jit-mt. More important: jit-mt is the evolution of jit version, so nobody will use the older once mt is tested enough.
>
> So, I rather name the vms:
>
> Cog Stack (or something more appealing for end users like "Cog Universal")
> Cog 1.0
> Cog 2.0
>
> ... or something like that
>
> (I know, I'm minority in this, but I needed to express my point of view, just for the record :) )
>

Not at all.
At a time of release, we can always rename VM to
Squeak/Cog/Pharo/Croquet/whatever and ship it with corresponding
image(s) in 1-click package.
As you said, we need it internally (and especially during transition)
because it is much nicer to have distinct names for every kind of VMs
we're using/testing/developing.

> best,
> Esteban
>


--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Cog/JIT/Stack/VM .. executable names

Tapple Gao
 
On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 02:27:53PM +0100, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> At a time of release, we can always rename VM to
> Squeak/Cog/Pharo/Croquet/whatever and ship it with corresponding
> image(s) in 1-click package.
> As you said, we need it internally (and especially during transition)
> because it is much nicer to have distinct names for every kind of VMs
> we're using/testing/developing.

Ooh. internal code names. fancy

--
Matthew Fulmer (a.k.a. Tapple)