Popularity of Smalltalk in Software Industry

Hi Igor,

Am 07.05.2011 um 16:54 schrieb Igor Stasenko <[hidden email]>:
> I do agree that we could do something in this regard. But given that
> we could "do something" almost everywhere, it is hard to say if this
> topic should take priority. Currently my plate is full. So, its not
> about that there are someone says "no we don't want it ",
> its mainly about lack of resources.

point taken. For me, it would also be strictly spare-time.

Best,

Michael

On 05/07/2011 07:27 PM, Michael Haupt wrote: Point well taken. I wasn't talking about Smalltalk of course :)
> Best,
>
> Michael

On 07 May 2011, at 16:33, Igor Stasenko wrote:

> On 7 May 2011 10:41, Stéphane Ducasse <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Too bad. The eclipse license is not for us.
>>
> I'm not a lawyer, but reading it, it looks like this license are
> compatible with MIT.

My understanding is that the EPL requires 'derived work' to be EPL licensed.
While the EPL has much clearer definition of derived work than the GPL, it is still not as free as the MIT license. (Derived work explicitly excludes software modules build on top, so that it is clear that your business code can stay closed source. That definition is missing in the GPL as far as I understand.)
But I can't change that. The IBM lawyers insist on EPL.

Anyway, the RoarVM will never be as performant as the CogVM, so, the only reasonable approach is to steal the ideas and bring them to Cog.
Most ideas are described in papers already. And some missing details are hopefully published soon...




--
Stefan Marr
Software Languages Lab
Vrije Universiteit Brussel
Pleinlaan 2 / B-1050 Brussels / Belgium
http://soft.vub.ac.be/~smarr
Phone: +32 2 629 2974
Fax:   +32 2 629 3525

On 07. 05. 2011 13:37, Igor Stasenko wrote:
> On 7 May 2011 07:25, Michael Haupt <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> And do not forget the most important thing: people must be educated to
>> program for parallelism. The computing power is there to be exploited, but
>> programmers need to know how to exploit it. You can't rely on the compiler
>> or VM alone.

> That's the main problem, IMO. Most smalltalkers i met (oh.. why.. not
> just smalltalkers),
> fear parallelism like fire. Refer to it as something too complex they
> can't understand.
> And i think that's why "Parallelism to masses" approach is largely
> failing , not just in smalltalk,
> but in whole software industry.

Web frameworks are ones who would benefit from multicore Smalltalk
instantly and without exposing concurrent programing complexities to web
app developers.

All paralell programing/execution complexity can be nicely
encapsulated/hidden in web framework itself. And actually is now
already, because we need to handle parallel web requests all the time.

Best regards
Janko


--
Janko Mivšek
Aida/Web
Smalltalk Web Application Server
http://www.aidaweb.si