Smalltalk › Amber Smalltalk

Re: [Pharo-dev] Run Spur run!!

_‹ Previous Topic Next Topic _›

Classic

List

Threaded

2 messages Options

Manfred Kröhnert

Re: [Pharo-dev] Run Spur run!!

Hi,

this just popped up on the Pharo mailinglist.

I believe that not all of the mentioned limitations still are valid for Amber, but am not totally sure about it.

Maybe it would be good to address these points on the website and describe why some of them might not be possible on a JavaScript VM.

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi Thierry,

If Amber is useful then a Squeak/Pharo/Scratch/whatever plugin is useful. Amber has limitations (no thisContext, no become, no run-time class redefinition, no instance migration there-on, limited performance, especially for non-local return), but it is still useful enough for people to go through that extra deployment and verification step to check that the code still works under Amber. If one can't live with those limitations or if one doesn't want to pay the cost of the extra deployments step then a plugin solves that problem.

Don't confuse an absence as a lack of need. Because there has been no "plugin" solution for a few years doesn't mean it's not needed. That people have put significant effort into alternatives like Amber and Jalapeño proves it is useful.

Best,

Manfred

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "amber-lang" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Herby Vojčík

Re: [Pharo-dev] Run Spur run!!

Manfred Kröhnert <[hidden email]>napísal/a:

Hi,

this just popped up on the Pharo mailinglist.
I believe that not all of the mentioned limitations still are valid for Amber, but am not totally sure about it.

Maybe it would be good to address these points on the website and describe why some of them might not be possible on a JavaScript VM.

On Sat, Oct 25, 2014 at 7:20 PM, Eliot Miranda <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hi Thierry,

If Amber is useful then a Squeak/Pharo/Scratch/whatever plugin is useful.

Personal opinion: No one will install an exotic plugin for your web to work. They will just not use it.

Amber has limitations (no thisContext, no become,

Yes, no true thisContext (though stack trace part of it is simulated and available, in a fast way via postponing actually setting it up until someone actually uses `thisContext`).

Of course, no become as it's not in JS VM and simulating it was not an issue brought in.

no run-time class redefinition,

What is meant by run-time class redefinition?

no instance migration there-on,

Instance migration not possible as no way to do allInstances for builtin classes, bur also not needed, as JS just returns `undefined` which means `nil` inside Smalltalk code. So if you add new instance variable, it's no problem if old instance does not have it yet.

limited performance, especially for non-local return),

NLR is done via try/catch. Did not do benchmarking, but with modern engines, I would say the price is already negligible.

but it is still useful enough for people to go through that extra deployment and verification step to check that the code still works under Amber. If one can't live with those limitations or if one doesn't want to pay the cost of the extra deployments step then a plugin solves that problem.
Don't confuse an absence as a lack of need. Because there has been no "plugin" solution for a few years doesn't mean it's not needed. That people have put significant effort into alternatives like Amber and Jalapeño proves it is useful.

Best,
Manfred

Herby

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "amber-lang" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [hidden email].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.