[Pharo-project] Plan/discussion/communication around new object format
Locked
[Pharo-project] Plan/discussion/communication around new object format
 
|
"Any interest?" As ever, David, you are a person to say judicious, reasonable things. And what you propose is reasonable, but - alas - it will never happen. I think you're trying to resolve and defuse conflict here, as you usually do. And that is praiseworthy, but it is turning away from the politics of this situation. The players, the ones with actual power, have already decided on an immutability bit. This discussion of today is sort of a sideshow. Owing to Andreas's high level of knowledge, it appears, by reading this mailing list, that the decision has something to do with him. I think that's like saying if Steph had once offered an opinion on a mailing list about how Croquet should have been designed that it would have been implemented. Not likely. Bottom line: Steph wants an immutability bit. Eliot has made up his mind. And he won't demo something he already implemented in Visual Works. Why is Igor arguing against something his boss wants? Enjoy the immutability bit. It's on its way. Chris |
Re: [Pharo-project] Plan/discussion/communication around new object format
|
|
On 15 June 2012 03:38, Chris Cunnington <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > "Any interest?" > > > As ever, David, you are a person to say judicious, reasonable things. And what you propose is reasonable, but - alas - it will never happen. > > I think you're trying to resolve and defuse conflict here, as you usually do. And that is praiseworthy, but it is turning away from the > > politics of this situation. > point. And i won't kill anyone for it :) > > The players, the ones with actual power, have already decided on an immutability bit. This discussion of today is sort of a sideshow. > > Owing to Andreas's high level of knowledge, it appears, by reading this mailing list, that the decision has something to do with him. > > I think that's like saying if Steph had once offered an opinion on a mailing list about how Croquet should have been designed that it would have been implemented. > > Not likely. > That's sad.. So let us wait couple more decades, before someone else will do the next step, and then crowd will start crying "we want to have the same, we want to have the same". > > Bottom line: > > Steph wants an immutability bit. > > Eliot has made up his mind. And he won't demo something he already implemented in Visual Works. > > Why is Igor arguing against something his boss wants? > Perhaps because my boss cares to listen before rejecting, and don't use a dictator's rule to force me doing things, just because he thinks this is right thing to do? :) > > Enjoy the immutability bit. It's on its way. > I knew that there's little sense to discuss these things. I just thought/had a hope that this discussion is not about "let's discuss how to repeat what Eliot did in VW, to make Cog a twin brother of it", but about a step further from that, because there's always one. Yeah, maybe i having too idealistic view on that. Exchanging ideas, listen to each other, and finally work together to make something real. No. That's fallacy. We all should listen to what boss says and do what he says. End of story. Yeah, let us keep making bikes of any color, as long as they black. Enjoy. > > Chris > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko. |
Re: [Pharo-project] Plan/discussion/communication around new object format
|
|
In reply to this post by Chris Cunnington
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 09:38:42PM -0400, Chris Cunnington wrote: > > "Any interest?" > > As ever, David, you are a person to say judicious, reasonable things. And what you propose is reasonable, but - alas - it will never happen. Why would it not happen? All that I suggested was to ask interested people to help with a topic that is clearly of interest to all of us. Eliot has asked for input and discussion, so why not focus on providing some useful input? > I think you're trying to resolve and defuse conflict here, as you usually do. And that is praiseworthy, but it is turning away from the > politics of this situation. I am quite comfortable dealing with politics and conflict, but I don't see that as relevant here. > The players, the ones with actual power, have already decided on an immutability bit. This discussion of today is sort of a sideshow. > Owing to Andreas's high level of knowledge, it appears, by reading this mailing list, that the decision has something to do with him. What "players"? What "power"? It's just a few motivated folks with strong personalities and lots of talent. Give 'em a break ;-) Dave p.s. If decisions were being made by people with a "high level of knowledge", I'm not sure that it would be an entirely bad thing. As opposed to decisions being made by people with a "high level of opinion" for example. Hence my interest in measurable results, which requires real work by people with enough interest and motivation to do the experiments and report the results. I hope there will be a few people with that level of motivation. |
Re: [Pharo-project] Plan/discussion/communication around new object format
|
|
In reply to this post by Igor Stasenko
On 14/06/12 10:59 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote: > > I knew that there's little sense to discuss these things. This is a great discussion (could do with a bit less heat, but it's been hotter before). At the start, I thought an immutability bit was "obviously" needed, but your arguments have moved me toward: "maybe it should not be in the VM" and "maybe it needs further study". |
Re: [Pharo-project] Plan/discussion/communication around new object format
|
Administrator
|
In reply to this post by Igor Stasenko
Criticism/debate is perfect for creative ideas: http://blip.tv/jsconf/jsconf2012-brian-ford-6091521 (relevant bit starts at 7:00) This is a very productive discussion, both for the participants, and the community (I know I've learned a lot). Please, carry on... Sean
Cheers,
Sean |
Re: [Pharo-project] Plan/discussion/communication around new object format
|
|
In reply to this post by Igor Stasenko
On Thu, Jun 14, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]> wrote:
Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa! Both of you. I am *not* anyone's boss. I don't dictate what happens with the VM. I did the Cog JIT. I'm interested in delivering what I know works much more than I'm interested in experiments, essentially because that's what I think is most useful to the community (more useful to have a solid fast VM first, than an experimental, possibly broken VM sooner). But I'm not here to stop anyone from doing anything. The corollary is that I won't be bullied into doing things I don't want to do either. But my /not/ doing something doesn't prevent someone else from doing something does it?
When I did Cog I was careful not to add lots of new features and to only remove rarely used features that really got in the way. I made some changes (Floats in platform order, one can't change the Character table Array, but one can change its contents, added closures), but most things stayed the same and most code worked. Hence the community now has a medium-speed VM that's a lot faster than the interpreter and is reliable and widely used. In implementing a new object representation I want to do the same, provide a reliable VM that is even faster, with a few improvements that I know are useful (immutability, aligning all objects on an 8-byte boundary for float access through the FFI, lazy become, an incremental GC, ephemerons, segmented heap growth) and I know can be implemented. But my following my agenda (which I think is a useful one) a) doesn't imply that I think it is the only useful agenda, b) doesn't prevent people following their own agenda.
So please, each to his own, OK?
best, Eliot |
Re: [Pharo-project] Plan/discussion/communication around new object format
|
|
In reply to this post by Igor Stasenko
>> > Why conflict? I am not conflicting person. I just trying to make my > point. And i won't kill anyone for it :) Indeed we are discussing. >> >> The players, the ones with actual power, have already decided on an immutability bit. This discussion of today is sort of a sideshow. >> >> Owing to Andreas's high level of knowledge, it appears, by reading this mailing list, that the decision has something to do with him. >> >> I think that's like saying if Steph had once offered an opinion on a mailing list about how Croquet should have been designed that it would have been implemented. >> >> Not likely. >> > > That's sad.. So let us wait couple more decades, before someone else > will do the next step, > and then crowd will start crying "we want to have the same, we want to > have the same". > >> >> Bottom line: >> >> Steph wants an immutability bit. But I like to listen and I can even agree that what I thought was wrong. And when I read the arguments of igor in fact I have the impression that he is right. (see the mail with A and B) this is true that paying all the time the cost for finding and fixing bugs looks strange :) I would prefer to have object properties because we could fix a lot of issues (morphic…) with such a features. >> Eliot has made up his mind. And he won't demo something he already implemented in Visual Works. >> >> Why is Igor arguing against something his boss wants? Paying somebody does not mean that you are right :). > Perhaps because my boss cares to listen before rejecting, and don't > use a dictator's rule to > force me doing things, just because he thinks this is right thing to do? :) :) >> Enjoy the immutability bit. It's on its way. >> > > I knew that there's little sense to discuss these things. > I just thought/had a hope that this discussion is not about > "let's discuss how to repeat what Eliot did in VW, to make Cog a twin > brother of it", > but about a step further from that, because there's always one. > Yeah, maybe i having too idealistic view on that. Exchanging ideas, > listen to each other, > and finally work together to make something real. > No. That's fallacy. We all should listen to what boss says and do what > he says. End of story. > > Yeah, let us keep making bikes of any color, as long as they black. :) Igor you convinced me that immutability bit is not as exciting as it seems and that having a better compiler and a simpler contract with the VM is much better. You see you made me think and learn. Thanks. |
Re: [Pharo-project] Plan/discussion/communication around new object format
|
|
In reply to this post by Yanni Chiu
>> I knew that there's little sense to discuss these things. > > This is a great discussion (could do with a bit less heat, but it's been hotter before). > > At the start, I thought an immutability bit was "obviously" needed, but your arguments have moved me toward: "maybe it should not be in the VM" and "maybe it needs further study". Me too :) > |
«
Return to Squeak VM
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |