I just caught this on the Strongtalk mailing list, and thought that it may be of
interest to some of you. See http://www.strongtalk.org for more info. Cheers, Andy |
Hi! "Andrew Tween" <[hidden email]> wrote: > I just caught this on the Strongtalk mailing list, and thought that it may be of > interest to some of you. See http://www.strongtalk.org for more info. > Cheers, > Andy Yeah, seriously cool. I wonder if it can be of any practical help/use for us in the Squeak community. Anyway, I really fancy the license: http://www.strongtalk.org/sourcelicense.html ...nice to see Sun using the new BSD license, but I really fancy the last line. :) Ok, you can do air plane controls or whatever - but nuclear stuff? No, that is where we draw *the line* goddammit. ;) regards, Göran |
In reply to this post by Andrew Tween
Wow! Excellent, thanks for the information. On a more regrettable
note, they seem to have let go of David Ungar and Adam Spitz who were working on Self and Klein (which is now also released): http:// tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/self-interest/message/1943 On Sep 11, 2006, at 10:54 PM, Andrew Tween wrote: > I just caught this on the Strongtalk mailing list, and thought that > it may be of > interest to some of you. See http://www.strongtalk.org for more > info. > Cheers, > Andy > -- -Brian http://tunes.org/~water/brice.vcf PGP.sig (193 bytes) Download Attachment |
Thank you Andrew, Brian for the nice find.
There you go, seeing the value of an open source community in action: nobody can "have no further interest in funding it" :) /Klaus On Tue, 12 Sep 2006 08:33:44 +0200, Brian Rice wrote: > Wow! Excellent, thanks for the information. On a more regrettable > note, they seem to have let go of David Ungar and Adam Spitz who were > working on Self and Klein (which is now also released): http:// > tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/self-interest/message/1943 > > On Sep 11, 2006, at 10:54 PM, Andrew Tween wrote: > >> I just caught this on the Strongtalk mailing list, and thought that >> it may be of >> interest to some of you. See http://www.strongtalk.org for more >> info. >> Cheers, >> Andy >> > > -- > -Brian > http://tunes.org/~water/brice.vcf > |
In reply to this post by Andrew Tween
I just caught this on the Strongtalk mailing list, and thought that it may be of interest to some of you. See http://www.strongtalk.org for more info. This could be the most important thing to happen in the Smalltalk
community in years. The Strongtalk VM was faster than any other
when it was written, and I believe it is still comparable to the
VisualWorks VM (it would be fun to test).
One could ignore the type system and simply port all of Squeak
into Strongtalk (of course there are parts of Strongtalk that are
better and should not be lost ;-). Then, or in the process, if
one did a tasteful job of supporting the types optionally (ie a
browser switch to show them or not), it would be the first opportunity
to have the best of both worlds in Smalltalk -- or anywhere for that
matter.
The Strongtalk VM is organized as a high-performance interpreter
(2-3 times Squeak speed, I believe), and an inlining JIT that achieves
roughly 6x Squeak speed. Gilad reports the following on his
Intel Mac:
My mind reels at these numbers. Moreover Robert Griesemer
had a design for an even better JIT and, if this became an active
project, I bet he would help out.
Strongtalk is set up to support native windows, and it probably
makes sense to keep it that way, but this would be a parting of the
ways from Squeak's run-anywhere agility. It would be nice to introduce
a layer in the UI with a separate bitblt-only implementation to retain
extreme portability.
The VM is not simple -- it is a large body of C++ code.
However it was written by smart people and is well-organized (I
haven't looked through it carefully). It probably has some bugs,
and it may take some archaeology to get it all to compile with the
latest tools.
That said, I think there would be a tremendous reward for doing
the work. The ironman engineering of Strongtalk seems a perfect
match for Squeak's cheerful insouciance.
|
>> I just caught this on the Strongtalk mailing list, and thought
>> that it may be of >> interest to some of you. See http://www.strongtalk.org for more >> info. > > This could be the most important thing to happen in the Smalltalk > community in years. The Strongtalk VM was faster than any other > when it was written, and I believe it is still comparable to the > VisualWorks VM (it would be fun to test). At ESUG Georg Heeg showed how they were sucessfull to run ObjectStudio in VW and this was quite impressive. So Squeak could run on VW but the VM is not open-source. So I really hope that there will be a living and kicking strongtalk community. > One could ignore the type system and simply port all of Squeak into > Strongtalk (of course there are parts of Strongtalk that are better > and should not be lost ;-). Then, or in the process, if one did a > tasteful job of supporting the types optionally (ie a browser > switch to show them or not), it would be the first opportunity to > have the best of both worlds in Smalltalk -- or anywhere for that > matter. several people are working on pluggable type system in Smalltalk. There is at least one smart guys at berne working on that > The Strongtalk VM is organized as a high-performance interpreter > (2-3 times Squeak speed, I believe), and an inlining JIT that > achieves roughly 6x Squeak speed. Gilad reports the following on > his Intel Mac: > > Squeak 3.8 345,712,356 bytecodes/sec; 7,855,215 sends/sec > Strongtalk 1,805,996,472 bytecodes/sec; 48,075,256 sends/sec > > My mind reels at these numbers. Moreover Robert Griesemer had a > design for an even better JIT and, if this became an active > project, I bet he would help out. > > Strongtalk is set up to support native windows, and it probably > makes sense to keep it that way, but this would be a parting of the > ways from Squeak's run-anywhere agility. It would be nice to > introduce a layer in the UI with a separate bitblt-only > implementation to retain extreme portability. > > The VM is not simple -- it is a large body of C++ code. However it > was written by smart people and is well-organized (I haven't looked > through it carefully). It probably has some bugs, and it may take > some archaeology to get it all to compile with the latest tools. > > That said, I think there would be a tremendous reward for doing the > work. The ironman engineering of Strongtalk seems a perfect match > for Squeak's cheerful insouciance. > > - Dan > |
In reply to this post by Dan Ingalls
I'd like to see the UI bits ported to wxWidgets. That would be a
bitchin' system I betcha. On Sep 12, 2006, at 7:59 AM, Dan Ingalls wrote: >> I just caught this on the Strongtalk mailing list, and thought >> that it may be of >> interest to some of you. See http://www.strongtalk.org for more >> info. > > This could be the most important thing to happen in the Smalltalk > community in years. The Strongtalk VM was faster than any other > when it was written, and I believe it is still comparable to the > VisualWorks VM (it would be fun to test). > > One could ignore the type system and simply port all of Squeak into > Strongtalk (of course there are parts of Strongtalk that are better > and should not be lost ;-). Then, or in the process, if one did a > tasteful job of supporting the types optionally (ie a browser > switch to show them or not), it would be the first opportunity to > have the best of both worlds in Smalltalk -- or anywhere for that > matter. > > The Strongtalk VM is organized as a high-performance interpreter > (2-3 times Squeak speed, I believe), and an inlining JIT that > achieves roughly 6x Squeak speed. Gilad reports the following on > his Intel Mac: > > Squeak 3.8 345,712,356 bytecodes/sec; 7,855,215 sends/sec > Strongtalk 1,805,996,472 bytecodes/sec; 48,075,256 sends/sec > > My mind reels at these numbers. Moreover Robert Griesemer had a > design for an even better JIT and, if this became an active > project, I bet he would help out. > > Strongtalk is set up to support native windows, and it probably > makes sense to keep it that way, but this would be a parting of the > ways from Squeak's run-anywhere agility. It would be nice to > introduce a layer in the UI with a separate bitblt-only > implementation to retain extreme portability. > > The VM is not simple -- it is a large body of C++ code. However it > was written by smart people and is well-organized (I haven't looked > through it carefully). It probably has some bugs, and it may take > some archaeology to get it all to compile with the latest tools. > > That said, I think there would be a tremendous reward for doing the > work. The ironman engineering of Strongtalk seems a perfect match > for Squeak's cheerful insouciance. > > - Dan > |
In reply to this post by Andrew Tween
Andrew Tween schrieb:
> I just caught this on the Strongtalk mailing list, and thought that it may be of > interest to some of you. See http://www.strongtalk.org for more info. > Cheers, > Andy > > > Great news! I've always wanted to look at that VM - now it's possible. It even runs without problems under Linux (wine). The browser takes a bit getting used to, and the system has some rough spots, but nevertheless, it's fun. Cheers, Hans-Martin |
Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |