Now, moving forward, what would be required to have an interpreter embedded in C, even if this means having another image with a special API and the whole enchilada? At least a working prototype. I have looked at the "Porting the VM" document and the part about headless (which is now done differently). What comes to my mind is to define a specific neutral C platform that would be able to execute basic bytecode.
From videos of Ben, I saw SystemTracer (or SystemTracer2) recreating a very tiny image making some noise to prove it was working.
Could it be possible to target this kind of tiny image running inside a C program through a base interpreter? This would avoid having to deal with the whole primitives and plugins at the beginning. Phil On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 9:07 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr>wrote:
The main issue is that it is complicated to embed the VM in C code. That's due to how the VM is done.
Compared to TCL, where you can easily embed the interpreter in a C program, this is a problem. http://wiki.tcl.tk/3474
Where you can embed the interpreter in a C program, you can do whatever integration you want.
Now, with NativeBoost, we can call C. The next challenge would be to be able to call Pharo from C by embedding the interpreter.
I am curious to see what you guys think about this.
It is one of my dream! Now I'm too bad in C to make this dream comes true. Sadly. But I would love to have Pharo being able to be embedded in C.
I would love to see things like mod_pharo (as there is mod_php, mod_perl, mod_tcl...) in Apache.
--- Philippe Back Dramatic Performance Improvements Mob: +32(0) 478 650 140 | Fax: +32 (0) 70 408 027 Mail:phil@highoctane.be | Web: http://philippeback.eu Blog: http://philippeback.be | Twitter: @philippeback Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/philippeback/videos
High Octane SPRL rue cour Boisacq 101 | 1301 Bierges | Belgium
Pharo Consortium Member - http://consortium.pharo.org/ Featured on the Software Process and Measurement Cast - http://spamcast.libsyn.com Sparx Systems Enterprise Architect and Ability Engineering EADocX Value Added Reseller
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 9:48 AM, kilon alios <kilon.alios@gmail.com> wrote:
please note that generating dlls alone wont be enough , plugins are compiled against a runtime or specific libraries (a Plugin SDK) and Smalltalk MT would have to be able to do that in order to be a viable solution.
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Stéphane Ducasse < stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
You should think that they use their smalltalk for their projects.
Stef
On Dec 9, 2013, at 9:21 AM, Clément Bera <bera.clement@gmail.com> wrote:
How can people even know Smalltalk MT still exist with their website and their communication ?
I looked at other Smalltalks a while ago, for Smalltalk MT I clicked on "what's new" on their website and I got that:
<Screen Shot 2013-12-09 at 9.18.11 AM.png>
Then I thought this Smalltalk was dead (nothing new in the past 4 years) and I didn't look any further.
2013/12/8 Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr>
Yes - still alive and kicking. But I'm sure you did not notice since there are no "big" announcements or advertising for it. ObjectConnect follows the "time is better invested into technology" strategy. It is one of the most interesting Smalltalks ever implemented.
http://www.objectconnect.com/stmt_overview.htm I like the idea that you can get 50kb applications. Now since this is a closed system and windows-centric. But I like that it shows that Smalltalk does not have to be the image centric way.
The newest ST/MT 6.3 version (now 64 bit) is from end of November 2013
Now it is not a community thing. :) And the web site stop and 5.6 in 2009.
Last time I talk to tarrick he told me that he could control the "no gc in the next 250 frames on PS2" but it was in 1998 :)
Stef