Strongtalk VM for Squeak?

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Strongtalk VM for Squeak?

David Griswold-4
Hi Squeak VMers,
 
I would like to start a dialog about the possiblity of joining forces, perhaps with the goal of producing a version of the Strongtalk VM for Squeak. 
 
Our problem over here is that the release of the VM source isn't very well timed, since no one from the original Strongtalk team has the time or inclination to support a full-blown open source effort to get the whole Strongtalk system finished and usable as a separate version of Smalltalk.   It may turn out that Gilad Bracha can get some Sun funding to get a few VM engineers going on it, but that is speculation at this point. 
 
Personally, I just want to follow the fastest path to getting an open-source Smalltalk with this VM technology out there.   If there is enough interest from Squeak VM-land,  I would prefer to refocus energy from the Strongtalk community towards helping get Squeak up and running on our VM, porting it, etc.
 
What is the thinking in Squeak-land about this?
 
Cheers,
Dave
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Strongtalk VM for Squeak?

Andreas.Raab
I think a project like this would need some champion. Having a
Strongtalk VM would be wonderful but it's likely to be a lot of work and
if I look around I don't see a lot of people with spare time at their
disposal.

Cheers,
   - Andreas

David Griswold wrote:

>  
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hi Squeak VMers,
>  
> I would like to start a dialog about the possiblity of joining forces,
> perhaps with the goal of producing a version of the Strongtalk VM for
> Squeak.
>  
> Our problem over here is that the release of the VM source isn't very
> well timed, since no one from the original Strongtalk team has the time
> or inclination to support a full-blown open source effort to get the
> whole Strongtalk system finished and usable as a separate version of
> Smalltalk.   It may turn out that Gilad Bracha can get some Sun funding
> to get a few VM engineers going on it, but that is speculation at this
> point.
>  
> Personally, I just want to follow the fastest path to getting an
> open-source Smalltalk with this VM technology out there.   If there is
> enough interest from Squeak VM-land,  I would prefer to refocus energy
> from the Strongtalk community towards helping get Squeak up and running
> on our VM, porting it, etc.
>  
> What is the thinking in Squeak-land about this?
>  
> Cheers,
> Dave

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Strongtalk VM for Squeak?

Brad Fuller
Andreas Raab wrote:
>
> I think a project like this would need some champion. Having a
> Strongtalk VM would be wonderful but it's likely to be a lot of work
> and if I look around I don't see a lot of people with spare time at
> their disposal.
What if we had a technical lead in the Squeak VM community that could
lead a Sun sponsored group (of 1 or 2).  The work could be delineated in
large chunks - defined in such a way that the work could be done by
several people, at different times. Part-time Squeakers answer tough
questions about Squeak and even code here and there - but most of the
coding is done by Sun. If organized and planned in chunks, maybe it
could be done little by little. More cost would go into the planning of
the project. We'd need to know exactly the status of the current code
and how hard it would be to organize it to start a project.

In this scenario, the Sun team, who understands the code better, can
pass the code knowledge onto the Squeaker(s) that are leading the team.
That way, the Squeak community acquires the knowledge needed to maintain
the code. The squeakers can pass knowledge about the inner workings of
Squeak to Sun.

Granted it would be using the workhorse of this "speculative" Sun team.

The Squeak Foundation could sponsor the "open source" initiative
(website, tracking, server space). What chance is there of getting Sun
to contribute? What can Squeak contribute back to Sun in exchange?
If Sun can't contribute manpower, can they contribute funding to the
Squeak Foundation to put toward experienced coders?

brad

> David Griswold wrote:
>> Hi Squeak VMers,
>>  
>> I would like to start a dialog about the possiblity of joining
>> forces, perhaps with the goal of producing a version of the
>> Strongtalk VM for Squeak.  
>> Our problem over here is that the release of the VM source isn't very
>> well timed, since no one from the original Strongtalk team has the
>> time or inclination to support a full-blown open source effort to get
>> the whole Strongtalk system finished and usable as a separate version
>> of Smalltalk.   It may turn out that Gilad Bracha can get some Sun
>> funding to get a few VM engineers going on it, but that is
>> speculation at this point.  
>> Personally, I just want to follow the fastest path to getting an
>> open-source Smalltalk with this VM technology out there.   If there
>> is enough interest from Squeak VM-land,  I would prefer to refocus
>> energy from the Strongtalk community towards helping get Squeak up
>> and running on our VM, porting it, etc.
>>  
>> What is the thinking in Squeak-land about this?
>>  
>> Cheers,
>> Dave


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Strongtalk VM for Squeak?

johnmci
In reply to this post by David Griswold-4
David, you've got quite a number of folks on the list thinking  
seriously on this, right now we're plotting so to speak. Andreas btw  
is *quite busy* with Croquet at the moment, but there are other folks  
here who are much more flexible, so give us a day or so to plot. I'll  
note this list is quite small, and some important folks don't  
subscribe to it, however we're forwarding your note around the  
community right now.



On 15-Sep-06, at 3:31 PM, David Griswold wrote:

> Hi Squeak VMers,
>
> I would like to start a dialog about the possiblity of joining  
> forces, perhaps with the goal of producing a version of the  
> Strongtalk VM for Squeak.
>
> Our problem over here is that the release of the VM source isn't  
> very well timed, since no one from the original Strongtalk team has  
> the time or inclination to support a full-blown open source effort  
> to get the whole Strongtalk system finished and usable as a  
> separate version of Smalltalk.   It may turn out that Gilad Bracha  
> can get some Sun funding to get a few VM engineers going on it, but  
> that is speculation at this point.
>
> Personally, I just want to follow the fastest path to getting an  
> open-source Smalltalk with this VM technology out there.   If there  
> is enough interest from Squeak VM-land,  I would prefer to refocus  
> energy from the Strongtalk community towards helping get Squeak up  
> and running on our VM, porting it, etc.
>
> What is the thinking in Squeak-land about this?
>
> Cheers,
> Dave

--
========================================================================
===
John M. McIntosh <[hidden email]>
Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd.  http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
========================================================================
===



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

re: Strongtalk VM for Squeak?

ccrraaiigg
In reply to this post by David Griswold-4

Hi Dave--

      I would love to see the StrongTalk ideas incorporated into Squeak,
but I'd never want to give up Squeak's wonderful self-hosting property
(the virtual machine is written in Smalltalk, and runnable and
debuggable in Smalltalk). All the C++ associated with the current
StrongTalk makes me wince. :)

      Another current Squeak project, Bryce Kampjes' "Exupery", a
physical-processor code translator, manages to maintain this property.
Could we do this with the StrongTalk ideas? Is there some useful overlap
between StrongTalk and Exupery? (Others please feel free to chime in.)

      This also seems like a good time to mention that I'm looking for
work and that I have extensive experience with the Squeak VM (see, for
example, my "Spoon" project, a minimal Squeak[1]).


      thanks!

-C

[1] http://netjam.org/spoon

--
Craig Latta
http://netjam.org/resume



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

testing re-subscribe

timrowledge
Damn mail system refuses to send mail to this address.... unless this  
gets through

tim
--
tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
Strange OpCodes: UDF: Use Disk for Frisbee



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: testing re-subscribe

Brad Fuller
tim Rowledge wrote:
>
> Damn mail system refuses to send mail to this address.... unless this
> gets through
it did


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Strongtalk VM for Squeak?

David Griswold-4
In reply to this post by ccrraaiigg
Hi Craig,

- I wouldn't dream of proposing that Squeak dump its self-hosting
properties.  In the short term, I think a better approach would be to factor
out some kind of common VM interface so that people can plug-in whichever VM
they want.

In the medium term, porting Strongtalk can be done more easily by starting
with just the interpreter and no compiler; the system runs just fine that
way, and then all the really complicated stuff like deoptimization etc can
be deferred.

In the long term, it would be great to rewrite the Strongtalk VM to be
self-hosting and self-debugging.  I had wanted to at least consider this
from the beginning (all that C++ makes me wince too), but I was dissuaded by
the VM guys as it is very much a research topic and we were trying to
develop a commercial product.  The performance of the VM in Strongtalk
(especially the interpreter and compiler) is critical to achieving decent
startup times without noticeable compilation pauses, so at the very least
the host VM must be compiled into some very efficient form.  The Squeak
approach of translating a minimal subset to C might help make that possible.
But it would be a huge project to rewrite the VM in Smalltalk, best done as
research somewhere.

- I haven't looked at Exupery.  I'd have to look to comment.  Performance is
as I have said the critical element, and having a huge chunk of time for
some talented people to do it, which is always the problem.

- As for work, I am working on my own right now, and so have no ability to
hire (and hardly any time to even fiddle with Strongtalk).  If Gilad Bracha,
who is the only one still at Sun, manages to get resources to hire people to
work on this (I wouldn't bet on it given Sun's situation and attitude
towards Smalltalk), that might be a possibility.  BTW, something like Spoon
might be a good candidate for the first port of Squeak to the Strongtalk VM,
if it has a smaller set of demands on the VM.

Dave


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig Latta
> [mailto:[hidden email]
> ld.mailshell.com]
> Sent: Friday, September 15, 2006 10:47 PM
> To: [hidden email]
> Cc: Squeak Virtual Machine Development Discussion
> Subject: re: Strongtalk VM for Squeak?
>
>
>
> Hi Dave--
>
>       I would love to see the StrongTalk ideas incorporated into Squeak,
> but I'd never want to give up Squeak's wonderful self-hosting property
> (the virtual machine is written in Smalltalk, and runnable and
> debuggable in Smalltalk). All the C++ associated with the current
> StrongTalk makes me wince. :)
>
>       Another current Squeak project, Bryce Kampjes' "Exupery", a
> physical-processor code translator, manages to maintain this property.
> Could we do this with the StrongTalk ideas? Is there some useful overlap
> between StrongTalk and Exupery? (Others please feel free to chime in.)
>
>       This also seems like a good time to mention that I'm looking for
> work and that I have extensive experience with the Squeak VM (see, for
> example, my "Spoon" project, a minimal Squeak[1]).
>
>
>       thanks!
>
> -C
>
> [1] http://rd.mailshell.com/netjam.org/spoon
>
> --
> Craig Latta
> http://rd.mailshell.com/netjam.org/resume
>
>
>
>
> ---------- Your email is protected by Mailshell ----------
> To block spam or change delivery options:
> http://www.mailshell.com/control.html?a=bds5l8ebkrvjdzygbifop7ifo7
m33nw489h2c_h9kpx3nmzf2qe9utb7dajw882bbfhkb9hkt6

Wouldn't you rather have David.Griswold.com as your personal domain?
http://rd.mailshell.com/ad465
Earn up to $3 for each of your friends who signs up with Mailshell!
http://rd.mailshell.com/sp5



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: testing re-subscribe

Klaus D. Witzel
In reply to this post by timrowledge
... and this for testing if the gmane interface does it again (Lars  
emailed that he cleaned it up).

/Klaus

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 19:02:24 +0200, tim Rowledge <[hidden email]> wrote:

>  Damn mail system refuses to send mail to this address.... unless this  
> gets through
>
> tim
> --
> tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
> Strange OpCodes: UDF: Use Disk for Frisbee
>
>



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RE: Strongtalk VM for Squeak?

Klaus D. Witzel
In reply to this post by David Griswold-4
Hi David,

on Sun, 17 Sep 2006 07:11:33 +0200, you wrote:

> Hi Craig,
>
> - I wouldn't dream of proposing that Squeak dump its self-hosting
> properties.  In the short term, I think a better approach would be to  
> factor
> out some kind of common VM interface so that people can plug-in  
> whichever VM
> they want.
>
> In the medium term, porting Strongtalk can be done more easily by  
> starting
> with just the interpreter and no compiler; the system runs just fine that
> way, and then all the really complicated stuff like deoptimization etc  
> can
> be deferred.

I think what Strongtalk VM and Squeak VM already have in common is demand  
for a powerful ObjectMemory implementation (the superclass of Squeak's  
interpreter).

Would you say that this can be a good subproject to start with, all in  
Slang.

/Klaus


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: Strongtalk VM for Squeak?

David Griswold-4
In reply to this post by David Griswold-4
Hi Klaus,
 
[...]
>
> I think what Strongtalk VM and Squeak VM already have in common is demand 
> for a powerful ObjectMemory implementation (the superclass of Squeak's 
> interpreter).
>
> Would you say that this can be a good subproject to start with, all in 
> Slang.
I haven't looked at Squeak's VM in detail, but from a quick look at ObjectMemory, I would say it seems to be exposing the guts of the VM implementation, and thus wouldn't be the right place for a common interface.  Something like that might be the right thing as the low-level interface for the long term goal of rewriting the Strongtalk VM in Slang or something like that, but for a common interface, we would want something that hides all the details of heap structure, object structure, etc, i.e. abstracts the VM functionality.
 
-Dave
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RE: Strongtalk VM for Squeak?

Michael Haupt-3
Hi,

On 9/17/06, David Griswold
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> [...] for a common interface, we would want something
> that hides all the details of heap structure, object structure, etc, i.e.
> abstracts the VM functionality.

perhaps something like MMTk? It's for Java, though, but it has a
pretty nice abstraction of such structures (and GC algorithms).

Some links:
- the "Oil and Water" paper on MMTk:
http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/blackburn04oil.html
- MMTk tutorial: http://jikesrvm.sourceforge.net/info/talks/ISMM04-MMTk.pdf

Best,

Michael

[1]