On 29. 07. 2010 10:45, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
> Hi folks. Hope Eliot is reading this thread.
>
> It is time to think in Pharo 1.2 and we need to discuss if we want to
> have CogVM as the standard Pharo VM.
>
> Most of us have tried it and found it incredible fast. So it would be
> very good to take advantage of it. ��But I think there are a couple of
> things to be discussed:
>
> 1) Cog VM seems to be aimed for x86 and 32 bits. You can read Eliot quotes:
> "The Cog VM is a just-in-time compiler that currently supports only x86
>
> No effort has been made to maintain 64-bit compatibility. ��Apologies,
> this was unaffordable."
>
> So...how much important is this for us? do we care? and if we want to do
> it, is it "doable" ? ��is it less doable than the normal squeak VM ?
>
> I really would like to have 64bits VM + 64bits images in a near
> future...but hat's just my thoguhts.
>
> 2) The status of the external plugins. Are they working with Cog ? ��Not
> only the "core plugings" but FFI, OSProcess (I read some problems with
> it), TrueType, etc...
>
> 3) Is it stable for production use? ��For example, I read that with
> seaside there are some crashes.
>
> 4) Depends on heroes. I never liked this idea. It has nothing to do with
> Eliot. He is very cool and helpful. But I wonder, do we understand the
> new VM and the changes? are we able to handle and fix it even without
> eliot ?
>
> 5) Integration to VMMaker. I saw that they started to merge cog
> (actually, I think only stack vm?) to the trunk of VMMaker. This is
> really good news. I hope everything is there and merged.
>
> 6) Binaries. It seems the official released didn't come with binaries.
> So we should compile it for each OS.
>
>
> Ok..that's all my thoughts. I would really like to have a discussion
> here and see what to do.....grrrrrr you are all in holidays, aren't you?
> hahah
>
> cheers
>
> Mariano
>
>
>