Re: [objetos] Re: Using V8 for other languages

> Hi,
>
>> It's generally a good idea to pick some external VM and built on top
>> of it - less work, more power, more compatibility with other
>> languages.
>
> When you build on top of some architecture you must consider
> obsolescence factors.
> From Java up today, all platforms has been discarded
> and speed of changes has been increased in the last decade.
> The recent history confirm that it will continue happening.
>
> IMHO, a better idea is to do not have a VM;
> e.g. make all operations requiered to build aplications
> in practice (and not in "abstract") manageable by the system itself
> (the system modeled in OO way or not... the same applies).
>
> Changing to another semantics can be good for someone
> that think that he has nothing to loose (e.g. someone too young
> in the industry); or for someone with very "special" needs;
> it si not something good to promote for "all the word"
> (as was done repeatedly by M$ and other recent companies
> selling that something will happen this year :)
>
> In practice, using well known semantics (e.g. smalltalk semantics)
> let companies do not loose investment in education (new
> companies and companies that use resources of others
> do not have possibility to loose, and has the freedom
> to try and waste one to 5 years, upto the next version
> of a new "refactored" concept :-)
>
> Returning to the no-VM proposal...
> Smalltalk is not a LOO, and it is not a VM design,
> it is a system that can be changed at any place
> (identity is preserved, Smalltalk is NOT it's contents
> at a point in time; it is the flow of contents in a sustainable
> system through time and guided by external actions
> -e.g. human actions-)
>
> In the past, most architectures supporting smalltalk systems
> was designed minimizing the primitive operations
> but the VM itself was implemented outside (unmanegeable by)
> the system because dynamic generation of low-level behavior
> was not possible.
> Today, there is more power for dynamic generation
> of low-level efficient code; and exists the posibility
> to reduce the (Smalltalk)VM to minimal expression,
> putting most of the operations relegated to the VM
> in the past as responsibility of objects in the system.
>
> e.g. It was frecuent, in smalltalk that lookUp and
> evaluate operations was solved in one stage as one VM
> operation and objects can´t refine/change the VM behavior.
> In recent object models desings[*], new implementations
> of object architectures where basic operations (responsibility
> of "the VM" in the past) managed by objects in the system
> are emerging; we have the posibility to extend/refine/change
> any basic behavior WITHOUT loosing robust tools
> for systems development...
>
> If we do a good work from any Smalltalk platform
> removing the VM as much as possible, it will continue
> been a Smalltalk and companies that have invested a lot
> in the past, promoting and using smalltalk, will not be
> forced to return to languages... (nor move to
> "scripting" languages)
>
> I know that the paragraphs put here can be void for
> someone young (focused in his/her future and not
> in what he/she has already done), but I also know that
> not all people/companies are happy about loosing their
> investments... again.
>
> w/best regards,
> Ale.
>
> p.d.: I have copied to Smalltalking list because we use
> to talk about this topics, but in Spanish; and I am interested
> in reflecting about how we feel when "new" alternatives
> are proposed for all-the-world ignoring peculiarities
> of people using marginal development alternatives as Smalltalk.
>
> [*] See objectsAsMethods proposal for Squeak (1999?)
> available at current Squeak implementation and Moebius
> project ( http://groups.google.com/group/moebius-project-discussion?hl=en )
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "pako" <[hidden email]>
> To: "Strongtalk-general" <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 6:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Using V8 for other languages
>
>>
>> It's generally a good idea to pick some external VM and built on top
>> of it - less work, more power, more compatibility with other
>> languages.
>> But using VM desgined with one language in mind - there should be
>> strong reasons for that.
>> How about Parrot VM? Dynamic languages designers is their target
>> audience.
>> And V8 is (for now) aimed at browser developers only.
>

>
> Una vez más debo decir que estoy 100% de acuerdo con tus palabras Ale.
>
> Justamente ayer estuve discutiendo con gente de Squeak sobre todas las
> cosas perdidas desde la versión 3.8, cosas que desestimaron, basados
> solamente en asunciones del ReleaseTeam (un team joven por cierto de
> gente que, en general, solo "juega" con Squeak) y sin ninguna
> "vigilancia" del Board.
>
> Se perdió mucho y a cambio no se ganó nada muy importante me parece.
>
> Me hizo acordar mucho a los "Modules" de 3.3 que inutilizaron
> prácticamente todo lo hecho en 3.2.
>
> Saludos.
> Germán.
>
> 2008/9/3 Alejandro F. Reimondo <[hidden email]
> <mailto:aleReimondo%40smalltalking.net>>:
> > Hi,
> >
> >> It's generally a good idea to pick some external VM and built on top
> >> of it - less work, more power, more compatibility with other
> >> languages.
> >
> > When you build on top of some architecture you must consider
> > obsolescence factors.
> > From Java up today, all platforms has been discarded
> > and speed of changes has been increased in the last decade.
> > The recent history confirm that it will continue happening.
> >
> > IMHO, a better idea is to do not have a VM;
> > e.g. make all operations requiered to build aplications
> > in practice (and not in "abstract") manageable by the system itself
> > (the system modeled in OO way or not... the same applies).
> >
> > Changing to another semantics can be good for someone
> > that think that he has nothing to loose (e.g. someone too young
> > in the industry); or for someone with very "special" needs;
> > it si not something good to promote for "all the word"
> > (as was done repeatedly by M$ and other recent companies
> > selling that something will happen this year :)
> >
> > In practice, using well known semantics (e.g. smalltalk semantics)
> > let companies do not loose investment in education (new
> > companies and companies that use resources of others
> > do not have possibility to loose, and has the freedom
> > to try and waste one to 5 years, upto the next version
> > of a new "refactored" concept :-)
> >
> > Returning to the no-VM proposal...
> > Smalltalk is not a LOO, and it is not a VM design,
> > it is a system that can be changed at any place
> > (identity is preserved, Smalltalk is NOT it's contents
> > at a point in time; it is the flow of contents in a sustainable
> > system through time and guided by external actions
> > -e.g. human actions-)
> >
> > In the past, most architectures supporting smalltalk systems
> > was designed minimizing the primitive operations
> > but the VM itself was implemented outside (unmanegeable by)
> > the system because dynamic generation of low-level behavior
> > was not possible.
> > Today, there is more power for dynamic generation
> > of low-level efficient code; and exists the posibility
> > to reduce the (Smalltalk)VM to minimal expression,
> > putting most of the operations relegated to the VM
> > in the past as responsibility of objects in the system.
> >
> > e.g. It was frecuent, in smalltalk that lookUp and
> > evaluate operations was solved in one stage as one VM
> > operation and objects can´t refine/change the VM behavior.
> > In recent object models desings[*], new implementations
> > of object architectures where basic operations (responsibility
> > of "the VM" in the past) managed by objects in the system
> > are emerging; we have the posibility to extend/refine/change
> > any basic behavior WITHOUT loosing robust tools
> > for systems development...
> >
> > If we do a good work from any Smalltalk platform
> > removing the VM as much as possible, it will continue
> > been a Smalltalk and companies that have invested a lot
> > in the past, promoting and using smalltalk, will not be
> > forced to return to languages... (nor move to
> > "scripting" languages)
> >
> > I know that the paragraphs put here can be void for
> > someone young (focused in his/her future and not
> > in what he/she has already done), but I also know that
> > not all people/companies are happy about loosing their
> > investments... again.
> >
> > w/best regards,
> > Ale.
> >
> > p.d.: I have copied to Smalltalking list because we use
> > to talk about this topics, but in Spanish; and I am interested
> > in reflecting about how we feel when "new" alternatives
> > are proposed for all-the-world ignoring peculiarities
> > of people using marginal development alternatives as Smalltalk.
> >
> > [*] See objectsAsMethods proposal for Squeak (1999?)
> > available at current Squeak implementation and Moebius
> > project (
> http://groups.google.com/group/moebius-project-discussion?hl=en 
> <http://groups.google.com/group/moebius-project-discussion?hl=en> )
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "pako" <[hidden email]
> <mailto:pavlo.korzhyk%40gmail.com>>
> > To: "Strongtalk-general" <[hidden email]
> <mailto:strongtalk-general%40googlegroups.com>>
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 6:50 AM
> > Subject: Re: Using V8 for other languages
> >
> >>
> >> It's generally a good idea to pick some external VM and built on top
> >> of it - less work, more power, more compatibility with other
> >> languages.
> >> But using VM desgined with one language in mind - there should be
> >> strong reasons for that.
> >> How about Parrot VM? Dynamic languages designers is their target
> >> audience.
> >> And V8 is (for now) aimed at browser developers only.
> >
>
>  

> Pero, si realmente, Squeak 4 se construye desde Spoon, o 3.8..no se
> recuperaría esa magia?
>
> Germán Arduino escribió:
>
>>
>> Una vez más debo decir que estoy 100% de acuerdo con tus palabras Ale.
>>
>> Justamente ayer estuve discutiendo con gente de Squeak sobre todas las
>> cosas perdidas desde la versión 3.8, cosas que desestimaron, basados
>> solamente en asunciones del ReleaseTeam (un team joven por cierto de
>> gente que, en general, solo "juega" con Squeak) y sin ninguna
>> "vigilancia" del Board.
>>
>> Se perdió mucho y a cambio no se ganó nada muy importante me parece.
>>
>> Me hizo acordar mucho a los "Modules" de 3.3 que inutilizaron
>> prácticamente todo lo hecho en 3.2.
>>
>> Saludos.
>> Germán.
>>
>> 2008/9/3 Alejandro F. Reimondo <[hidden email]
>> <mailto:aleReimondo%40smalltalking.net>>:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> >> It's generally a good idea to pick some external VM and built on top
>> >> of it - less work, more power, more compatibility with other
>> >> languages.
>> >
>> > When you build on top of some architecture you must consider
>> > obsolescence factors.
>> > From Java up today, all platforms has been discarded
>> > and speed of changes has been increased in the last decade.
>> > The recent history confirm that it will continue happening.
>> >
>> > IMHO, a better idea is to do not have a VM;
>> > e.g. make all operations requiered to build aplications
>> > in practice (and not in "abstract") manageable by the system itself
>> > (the system modeled in OO way or not... the same applies).
>> >
>> > Changing to another semantics can be good for someone
>> > that think that he has nothing to loose (e.g. someone too young
>> > in the industry); or for someone with very "special" needs;
>> > it si not something good to promote for "all the word"
>> > (as was done repeatedly by M$ and other recent companies
>> > selling that something will happen this year :)
>> >
>> > In practice, using well known semantics (e.g. smalltalk semantics)
>> > let companies do not loose investment in education (new
>> > companies and companies that use resources of others
>> > do not have possibility to loose, and has the freedom
>> > to try and waste one to 5 years, upto the next version
>> > of a new "refactored" concept :-)
>> >
>> > Returning to the no-VM proposal...
>> > Smalltalk is not a LOO, and it is not a VM design,
>> > it is a system that can be changed at any place
>> > (identity is preserved, Smalltalk is NOT it's contents
>> > at a point in time; it is the flow of contents in a sustainable
>> > system through time and guided by external actions
>> > -e.g. human actions-)
>> >
>> > In the past, most architectures supporting smalltalk systems
>> > was designed minimizing the primitive operations
>> > but the VM itself was implemented outside (unmanegeable by)
>> > the system because dynamic generation of low-level behavior
>> > was not possible.
>> > Today, there is more power for dynamic generation
>> > of low-level efficient code; and exists the posibility
>> > to reduce the (Smalltalk)VM to minimal expression,
>> > putting most of the operations relegated to the VM
>> > in the past as responsibility of objects in the system.
>> >
>> > e.g. It was frecuent, in smalltalk that lookUp and
>> > evaluate operations was solved in one stage as one VM
>> > operation and objects can´t refine/change the VM behavior.
>> > In recent object models desings[*], new implementations
>> > of object architectures where basic operations (responsibility
>> > of "the VM" in the past) managed by objects in the system
>> > are emerging; we have the posibility to extend/refine/change
>> > any basic behavior WITHOUT loosing robust tools
>> > for systems development...
>> >
>> > If we do a good work from any Smalltalk platform
>> > removing the VM as much as possible, it will continue
>> > been a Smalltalk and companies that have invested a lot
>> > in the past, promoting and using smalltalk, will not be
>> > forced to return to languages... (nor move to
>> > "scripting" languages)
>> >
>> > I know that the paragraphs put here can be void for
>> > someone young (focused in his/her future and not
>> > in what he/she has already done), but I also know that
>> > not all people/companies are happy about loosing their
>> > investments... again.
>> >
>> > w/best regards,
>> > Ale.
>> >
>> > p.d.: I have copied to Smalltalking list because we use
>> > to talk about this topics, but in Spanish; and I am interested
>> > in reflecting about how we feel when "new" alternatives
>> > are proposed for all-the-world ignoring peculiarities
>> > of people using marginal development alternatives as Smalltalk.
>> >
>> > [*] See objectsAsMethods proposal for Squeak (1999?)
>> > available at current Squeak implementation and Moebius
>> > project (
>> http://groups.google.com/group/moebius-project-discussion?hl=en
>> <http://groups.google.com/group/moebius-project-discussion?hl=en> )
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: "pako" <[hidden email]
>> <mailto:pavlo.korzhyk%40gmail.com>>
>> > To: "Strongtalk-general" <[hidden email]
>> <mailto:strongtalk-general%40googlegroups.com>>
>> > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 6:50 AM
>> > Subject: Re: Using V8 for other languages
>> >
>> >>
>> >> It's generally a good idea to pick some external VM and built on top
>> >> of it - less work, more power, more compatibility with other
>> >> languages.
>> >> But using VM desgined with one language in mind - there should be
>> >> strong reasons for that.
>> >> How about Parrot VM? Dynamic languages designers is their target
>> >> audience.
>> >> And V8 is (for now) aimed at browser developers only.
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

>
> No lo sé.
>
> A estas alturas creo que el único que se ocupó e intentó salvaguardar
> todo esto con su proyecto Ladrillos fue Edgar. El resto parece que
> sólo quiere tener un Perl o Python con una imagen.
>
> Saludos.
>
> 2008/9/3 Giuseppe Luigi Punzi <[hidden email]
> <mailto:glpunzi%40lordzealon.com>>:
> > Pero, si realmente, Squeak 4 se construye desde Spoon, o 3.8..no se
> > recuperaría esa magia?
> >
> > Germán Arduino escribió:
> >
> >>
> >> Una vez más debo decir que estoy 100% de acuerdo con tus palabras Ale.
> >>
> >> Justamente ayer estuve discutiendo con gente de Squeak sobre todas las
> >> cosas perdidas desde la versión 3.8, cosas que desestimaron, basados
> >> solamente en asunciones del ReleaseTeam (un team joven por cierto de
> >> gente que, en general, solo "juega" con Squeak) y sin ninguna
> >> "vigilancia" del Board.
> >>
> >> Se perdió mucho y a cambio no se ganó nada muy importante me parece.
> >>
> >> Me hizo acordar mucho a los "Modules" de 3.3 que inutilizaron
> >> prácticamente todo lo hecho en 3.2.
> >>
> >> Saludos.
> >> Germán.
> >>
> >> 2008/9/3 Alejandro F. Reimondo <[hidden email]
> <mailto:aleReimondo%40smalltalking.net>
> >> <mailto:aleReimondo%40smalltalking.net>>:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> >> It's generally a good idea to pick some external VM and built on top
> >> >> of it - less work, more power, more compatibility with other
> >> >> languages.
> >> >
> >> > When you build on top of some architecture you must consider
> >> > obsolescence factors.
> >> > From Java up today, all platforms has been discarded
> >> > and speed of changes has been increased in the last decade.
> >> > The recent history confirm that it will continue happening.
> >> >
> >> > IMHO, a better idea is to do not have a VM;
> >> > e.g. make all operations requiered to build aplications
> >> > in practice (and not in "abstract") manageable by the system itself
> >> > (the system modeled in OO way or not... the same applies).
> >> >
> >> > Changing to another semantics can be good for someone
> >> > that think that he has nothing to loose (e.g. someone too young
> >> > in the industry); or for someone with very "special" needs;
> >> > it si not something good to promote for "all the word"
> >> > (as was done repeatedly by M$ and other recent companies
> >> > selling that something will happen this year :)
> >> >
> >> > In practice, using well known semantics (e.g. smalltalk semantics)
> >> > let companies do not loose investment in education (new
> >> > companies and companies that use resources of others
> >> > do not have possibility to loose, and has the freedom
> >> > to try and waste one to 5 years, upto the next version
> >> > of a new "refactored" concept :-)
> >> >
> >> > Returning to the no-VM proposal...
> >> > Smalltalk is not a LOO, and it is not a VM design,
> >> > it is a system that can be changed at any place
> >> > (identity is preserved, Smalltalk is NOT it's contents
> >> > at a point in time; it is the flow of contents in a sustainable
> >> > system through time and guided by external actions
> >> > -e.g. human actions-)
> >> >
> >> > In the past, most architectures supporting smalltalk systems
> >> > was designed minimizing the primitive operations
> >> > but the VM itself was implemented outside (unmanegeable by)
> >> > the system because dynamic generation of low-level behavior
> >> > was not possible.
> >> > Today, there is more power for dynamic generation
> >> > of low-level efficient code; and exists the posibility
> >> > to reduce the (Smalltalk)VM to minimal expression,
> >> > putting most of the operations relegated to the VM
> >> > in the past as responsibility of objects in the system.
> >> >
> >> > e.g. It was frecuent, in smalltalk that lookUp and
> >> > evaluate operations was solved in one stage as one VM
> >> > operation and objects can´t refine/change the VM behavior.
> >> > In recent object models desings[*], new implementations
> >> > of object architectures where basic operations (responsibility
> >> > of "the VM" in the past) managed by objects in the system
> >> > are emerging; we have the posibility to extend/refine/change
> >> > any basic behavior WITHOUT loosing robust tools
> >> > for systems development...
> >> >
> >> > If we do a good work from any Smalltalk platform
> >> > removing the VM as much as possible, it will continue
> >> > been a Smalltalk and companies that have invested a lot
> >> > in the past, promoting and using smalltalk, will not be
> >> > forced to return to languages... (nor move to
> >> > "scripting" languages)
> >> >
> >> > I know that the paragraphs put here can be void for
> >> > someone young (focused in his/her future and not
> >> > in what he/she has already done), but I also know that
> >> > not all people/companies are happy about loosing their
> >> > investments... again.
> >> >
> >> > w/best regards,
> >> > Ale.
> >> >
> >> > p.d.: I have copied to Smalltalking list because we use
> >> > to talk about this topics, but in Spanish; and I am interested
> >> > in reflecting about how we feel when "new" alternatives
> >> > are proposed for all-the-world ignoring peculiarities
> >> > of people using marginal development alternatives as Smalltalk.
> >> >
> >> > [*] See objectsAsMethods proposal for Squeak (1999?)
> >> > available at current Squeak implementation and Moebius
> >> > project (
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/moebius-project-discussion?hl=en 
> <http://groups.google.com/group/moebius-project-discussion?hl=en>
> >> <http://groups.google.com/group/moebius-project-discussion?hl=en 
> <http://groups.google.com/group/moebius-project-discussion?hl=en>> )
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: "pako" <[hidden email]
> <mailto:pavlo.korzhyk%40gmail.com>
> >> <mailto:pavlo.korzhyk%40gmail.com>>
> >> > To: "Strongtalk-general" <[hidden email]
> <mailto:strongtalk-general%40googlegroups.com>
> >> <mailto:strongtalk-general%40googlegroups.com>>
> >> > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 6:50 AM
> >> > Subject: Re: Using V8 for other languages
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> It's generally a good idea to pick some external VM and built on top
> >> >> of it - less work, more power, more compatibility with other
> >> >> languages.
> >> >> But using VM desgined with one language in mind - there should be
> >> >> strong reasons for that.
> >> >> How about Parrot VM? Dynamic languages designers is their target
> >> >> audience.
> >> >> And V8 is (for now) aimed at browser developers only.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> Germán S. Arduino
> http://www.arsol.biz <http://www.arsol.biz>
> http://www.arsol.net <http://www.arsol.net>
>
>  

> Una vez más debo decir que estoy 100% de acuerdo con tus palabras Ale.
>
> Justamente ayer estuve discutiendo con gente de Squeak sobre todas las
> cosas perdidas desde la versión 3.8, cosas que desestimaron, basados
> solamente en asunciones del ReleaseTeam (un team joven por cierto de
> gente que, en general, solo "juega" con Squeak) y sin ninguna
> "vigilancia" del Board.
>
> Se perdió mucho y a cambio no se ganó nada muy importante me parece.
>
> Me hizo acordar mucho a los "Modules" de 3.3 que inutilizaron
> prácticamente todo lo hecho en 3.2.
>
> Saludos.
> Germán.
>
>
> 2008/9/3 Alejandro F. Reimondo <[hidden email]>:
>  
>> Hi,
>>
>>    
>>> It's generally a good idea to pick some external VM and built on top
>>> of it - less work, more power, more compatibility with other
>>> languages.
>>>      
>> When you build on top of some architecture you must consider
>> obsolescence factors.
>> From Java up today, all platforms has been discarded
>> and speed of changes has been increased in the last decade.
>> The recent history confirm that it will continue happening.
>>
>> IMHO, a better idea is to do not have a VM;
>> e.g. make all operations requiered to build aplications
>> in practice (and not in "abstract") manageable by the system itself
>> (the system modeled in OO way or not... the same applies).
>>
>> Changing to another semantics can be good for someone
>> that think that he has nothing to loose (e.g. someone too young
>> in the industry); or for someone with very "special" needs;
>> it si not something good to promote for "all the word"
>> (as was done repeatedly by M$ and other recent companies
>> selling that something will happen this year :)
>>
>> In practice, using well known semantics (e.g. smalltalk semantics)
>> let companies do not loose investment in education (new
>> companies and companies that use resources of others
>> do not have possibility to loose, and has the freedom
>> to try and waste one to 5 years, upto the next version
>> of a new "refactored" concept :-)
>>
>> Returning to the no-VM proposal...
>> Smalltalk is not a LOO, and it is not a VM design,
>> it is a system that can be changed at any place
>> (identity is preserved, Smalltalk is NOT it's contents
>> at a point in time; it is the flow of contents in a sustainable
>> system through time and guided by external actions
>> -e.g. human actions-)
>>
>> In the past, most architectures supporting smalltalk systems
>> was designed minimizing the primitive operations
>> but the VM itself was implemented outside (unmanegeable by)
>> the system because dynamic generation of low-level behavior
>> was not possible.
>> Today, there is more power for dynamic generation
>> of low-level efficient code; and exists the posibility
>> to reduce the (Smalltalk)VM to minimal expression,
>> putting most of the operations relegated to the VM
>> in the past as responsibility of objects in the system.
>>
>> e.g. It was frecuent, in smalltalk that lookUp and
>> evaluate operations was solved in one stage as one VM
>> operation and objects can´t refine/change the VM behavior.
>> In recent object models desings[*], new implementations
>> of object architectures where basic operations (responsibility
>> of "the VM" in the past) managed by objects in the system
>> are emerging; we have the posibility to extend/refine/change
>> any basic behavior WITHOUT loosing robust tools
>> for systems development...
>>
>> If we do a good work from any Smalltalk platform
>> removing the VM as much as possible, it will continue
>> been a Smalltalk and companies that have invested a lot
>> in the past, promoting and using smalltalk, will not be
>> forced to return to languages... (nor move to
>> "scripting" languages)
>>
>> I know that the paragraphs put here can be void for
>> someone young (focused in his/her future and not
>> in what he/she has already done), but I also know that
>> not all people/companies are happy about loosing their
>> investments... again.
>>
>> w/best regards,
>> Ale.
>>
>> p.d.: I have copied to Smalltalking list because we use
>> to talk about this topics, but in Spanish; and I am interested
>> in reflecting about how we feel when "new" alternatives
>> are proposed for all-the-world ignoring peculiarities
>> of people using marginal development alternatives as Smalltalk.
>>
>> [*] See objectsAsMethods proposal for Squeak (1999?)
>> available at current Squeak implementation and Moebius
>> project ( http://groups.google.com/group/moebius-project-discussion?hl=en )
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "pako" <[hidden email]>
>> To: "Strongtalk-general" <[hidden email]>
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 6:50 AM
>> Subject: Re: Using V8 for other languages
>>
>>    
>>> It's generally a good idea to pick some external VM and built on top
>>> of it - less work, more power, more compatibility with other
>>> languages.
>>> But using VM desgined with one language in mind - there should be
>>> strong reasons for that.
>>> How about Parrot VM? Dynamic languages designers is their target
>>> audience.
>>> And V8 is (for now) aimed at browser developers only.
>>>      
>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> correo electrónico a: [hidden email]
>
>
> correo electrónico a: [hidden email]
>
> Enlaces a Yahoo! Grupos
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  

>
>
> El 9/3/08 1:26 PM, "Germán Arduino" <[hidden email]> escribió:
>
>> Me hizo acordar mucho a los "Modules" de 3.3 que inutilizaron
>> prácticamente todo lo hecho en 3.2.
>>
>> Saludos.
>> Germán
>
> No entendes nada.

>
> Así que prefiero equivocarme siendo inocente.
>
> Fango dijo:
>
> Hay que trabajar para ser el mejor.
> NUNCA creerse el mejor.
>
> Edgar
>

>   No lo sé.
>
> A estas alturas creo que el único que se ocupó e intentó salvaguardar
> todo esto con su proyecto Ladrillos fue Edgar. El resto parece que
> sólo quiere tener un Perl o Python con una imagen.
>
> Saludos.
>
> 2008/9/3 Giuseppe Luigi Punzi <[hidden email]<glpunzi%40lordzealon.com>
> >:
>
> > Pero, si realmente, Squeak 4 se construye desde Spoon, o 3.8..no se
> > recuperaría esa magia?
> >
> > Germán Arduino escribió:
> >
> >>
> >> Una vez más debo decir que estoy 100% de acuerdo con tus palabras Ale.
> >>
> >> Justamente ayer estuve discutiendo con gente de Squeak sobre todas las
> >> cosas perdidas desde la versión 3.8, cosas que desestimaron, basados
> >> solamente en asunciones del ReleaseTeam (un team joven por cierto de
> >> gente que, en general, solo "juega" con Squeak) y sin ninguna
> >> "vigilancia" del Board.
> >>
> >> Se perdió mucho y a cambio no se ganó nada muy importante me parece.
> >>
> >> Me hizo acordar mucho a los "Modules" de 3.3 que inutilizaron
> >> prácticamente todo lo hecho en 3.2.
> >>
> >> Saludos.
> >> Germán.
> >>
> >> 2008/9/3 Alejandro F. Reimondo <[hidden email]<aleReimondo%40smalltalking.net>
> >> <mailto:aleReimondo%40smalltalking.net<aleReimondo%2540smalltalking.net>
> >>:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> >> It's generally a good idea to pick some external VM and built on top
> >> >> of it - less work, more power, more compatibility with other
> >> >> languages.
> >> >
> >> > When you build on top of some architecture you must consider
> >> > obsolescence factors.
> >> > From Java up today, all platforms has been discarded
> >> > and speed of changes has been increased in the last decade.
> >> > The recent history confirm that it will continue happening.
> >> >
> >> > IMHO, a better idea is to do not have a VM;
> >> > e.g. make all operations requiered to build aplications
> >> > in practice (and not in "abstract") manageable by the system itself
> >> > (the system modeled in OO way or not... the same applies).
> >> >
> >> > Changing to another semantics can be good for someone
> >> > that think that he has nothing to loose (e.g. someone too young
> >> > in the industry); or for someone with very "special" needs;
> >> > it si not something good to promote for "all the word"
> >> > (as was done repeatedly by M$ and other recent companies
> >> > selling that something will happen this year :)
> >> >
> >> > In practice, using well known semantics (e.g. smalltalk semantics)
> >> > let companies do not loose investment in education (new
> >> > companies and companies that use resources of others
> >> > do not have possibility to loose, and has the freedom
> >> > to try and waste one to 5 years, upto the next version
> >> > of a new "refactored" concept :-)
> >> >
> >> > Returning to the no-VM proposal...
> >> > Smalltalk is not a LOO, and it is not a VM design,
> >> > it is a system that can be changed at any place
> >> > (identity is preserved, Smalltalk is NOT it's contents
> >> > at a point in time; it is the flow of contents in a sustainable
> >> > system through time and guided by external actions
> >> > -e.g. human actions-)
> >> >
> >> > In the past, most architectures supporting smalltalk systems
> >> > was designed minimizing the primitive operations
> >> > but the VM itself was implemented outside (unmanegeable by)
> >> > the system because dynamic generation of low-level behavior
> >> > was not possible.
> >> > Today, there is more power for dynamic generation
> >> > of low-level efficient code; and exists the posibility
> >> > to reduce the (Smalltalk)VM to minimal expression,
> >> > putting most of the operations relegated to the VM
> >> > in the past as responsibility of objects in the system.
> >> >
> >> > e.g. It was frecuent, in smalltalk that lookUp and
> >> > evaluate operations was solved in one stage as one VM
> >> > operation and objects can´t refine/change the VM behavior.
> >> > In recent object models desings[*], new implementations
> >> > of object architectures where basic operations (responsibility
> >> > of "the VM" in the past) managed by objects in the system
> >> > are emerging; we have the posibility to extend/refine/change
> >> > any basic behavior WITHOUT loosing robust tools
> >> > for systems development...
> >> >
> >> > If we do a good work from any Smalltalk platform
> >> > removing the VM as much as possible, it will continue
> >> > been a Smalltalk and companies that have invested a lot
> >> > in the past, promoting and using smalltalk, will not be
> >> > forced to return to languages... (nor move to
> >> > "scripting" languages)
> >> >
> >> > I know that the paragraphs put here can be void for
> >> > someone young (focused in his/her future and not
> >> > in what he/she has already done), but I also know that
> >> > not all people/companies are happy about loosing their
> >> > investments... again.
> >> >
> >> > w/best regards,
> >> > Ale.
> >> >
> >> > p.d.: I have copied to Smalltalking list because we use
> >> > to talk about this topics, but in Spanish; and I am interested
> >> > in reflecting about how we feel when "new" alternatives
> >> > are proposed for all-the-world ignoring peculiarities
> >> > of people using marginal development alternatives as Smalltalk.
> >> >
> >> > [*] See objectsAsMethods proposal for Squeak (1999?)
> >> > available at current Squeak implementation and Moebius
> >> > project (
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/moebius-project-discussion?hl=en
> >> <http://groups.google.com/group/moebius-project-discussion?hl=en> )
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> > From: "pako" <[hidden email] <pavlo.korzhyk%40gmail.com>
> >> <mailto:pavlo.korzhyk%40gmail.com <pavlo.korzhyk%2540gmail.com>>>
> >> > To: "Strongtalk-general" <[hidden email]<strongtalk-general%40googlegroups.com>
> >> <mailto:strongtalk-general%40googlegroups.com<strongtalk-general%2540googlegroups.com>
> >>
> >> > Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 6:50 AM
> >> > Subject: Re: Using V8 for other languages
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> It's generally a good idea to pick some external VM and built on top
> >> >> of it - less work, more power, more compatibility with other
> >> >> languages.
> >> >> But using VM desgined with one language in mind - there should be
> >> >> strong reasons for that.
> >> >> How about Parrot VM? Dynamic languages designers is their target
> >> >> audience.
> >> >> And V8 is (for now) aimed at browser developers only.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
>
> --
> Germán S. Arduino
> http://www.arsol.biz
> http://www.arsol.net
>  
>

>
>
>
> El 9/3/08 1:35 PM, "Giuseppe Luigi Punzi" <[hidden email]
> <mailto:glpunzi%40lordzealon.com>> escribió:
>
> > Si eso es lo que quieren, para eso ya está GNU Smalltalk.
> Por que no te unis a ellos si te sentis mas cómodo ?
>
>