[Pharo-project] Meanwhile, at another vm
On 12 Apr 2011, at 16:20, Stephan Eggermont wrote:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/mlvm-dev/2011-April/002802.html
Sounds nice, but could you give some context, URLs ? What are they talking about ? Sven
Am 12.04.2011 um 21:16 schrieb Sven Van Caekenberghe:
On 12 Apr 2011, at 16:20, Stephan Eggermont wrote:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/mlvm-dev/2011-April/002802.html
Sounds nice, but could you give some context, URLs ? What are they talking about ?
I think the talk about a smalltalk implementation based on http://www.jcp.org/en/jsr/detail?id=292 Norbert
I really interested to see if pharo would run on a JVM. Do you know what smalltalk they are working on? Stef On Apr 12, 2011, at 4:20 PM, Stephan Eggermont wrote:
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/mlvm-dev/2011-April/002802.html
On 04/13/2011 09:00 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
I really interested to see if pharo would run on a JVM.
Probably not. I mean you all the code relying on primitives, all the code relying on ByteString having the same memory layout as ByteArray, all the code relying on the scheduler being non-preemptive, all the code relying on #become: and so forth. Cheers Philippe
still this can always be interesting to learn your limit and dependencies. Stef On Apr 13, 2011, at 9:32 AM, Philippe Marschall wrote:
On 04/13/2011 09:00 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
I really interested to see if pharo would run on a JVM.
Probably not. I mean you all the code relying on primitives, all the code relying on ByteString having the same memory layout as ByteArray, all the code relying on the scheduler being non-preemptive, all the code relying on #become: and so forth.
Cheers Philippe
On Apr 13, 2011, at 3:40 PM, Philippe Marschall wrote:
On 04/13/2011 02:57 PM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
still this can always be interesting to learn your limit and dependencies.
Sure, didn't make any judgments in any way. Just said I see some problems on the road.
That I'm convinced :)
Cheers Philippe
On 13 Apr 2011, at 09:32, Philippe Marschall wrote:
Probably not. I mean you all the code relying on primitives, all the code relying on ByteString having the same memory layout as ByteArray, all the code relying on the scheduler being non-preemptive, all the code relying on #become: and so forth.
"Running on the JVM" and "Running on the JVM" are two completely different things. Just a reminder: http://news.squeak.org/2008/07/07/potato-version-of-jsqueak-from-hpi/ -- Stefan Marr Software Languages Lab Vrije Universiteit Brussel Pleinlaan 2 / B-1050 Brussels / Belgium http://soft.vub.ac.be/~smarr Phone: +32 2 629 2974 Fax: +32 2 629 3525
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Stefan Marr <pharo@stefan-marr.de> wrote:
On 13 Apr 2011, at 09:32, Philippe Marschall wrote:
Probably not. I mean you all the code relying on primitives, all the code relying on ByteString having the same memory layout as ByteArray, all the code relying on the scheduler being non-preemptive, all the code relying on #become: and so forth.
"Running on the JVM" and "Running on the JVM" are two completely different things.
Here seems to be the same 'Running on the JVM' = 'Running on the JVM' -> true ehehhe I guess you forgot to change something or I am so stupid to understand...
Just a reminder: http://news.squeak.org/2008/07/07/potato-version-of-jsqueak-from-hpi/
-- Stefan Marr Software Languages Lab Vrije Universiteit Brussel Pleinlaan 2 / B-1050 Brussels / Belgium http://soft.vub.ac.be/~smarr Phone: +32 2 629 2974 Fax: +32 2 629 3525
-- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
Hi: On 13 Apr 2011, at 16:44, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
"Running on the JVM" and "Running on the JVM" are two completely different things. Here seems to be the same
'Running on the JVM' = 'Running on the JVM' -> true
ehehhe I guess you forgot to change something or I am so stupid to understand...
Sorry, that was on purpose. 'Running on the JVM' is just a useless term. Potato shows how to implement an interpreter in Java that runs on top of the JVM. With some minor adaptations it would also be able to run Pharo. But the question is, how useful would that be. With that model, it is not directly possible to exploit JVM mechanism like threads. It is basically identical to the SqueakVM with just exchanging C for Java. Even compiling Smalltalk to Java bytecode does not get you closer to leveraging the JVM. It would be 'just' Cog, with JVM bytecodes as a target instead of x86. You get speed, but you do not really get closer to use the JVM platform. Best regards Stefan
Just a reminder: http://news.squeak.org/2008/07/07/potato-version-of-jsqueak-from-hpi/
PS: It would be awesome if my mail client would be able to quote your mail correctly. -- Stefan Marr Software Languages Lab Vrije Universiteit Brussel Pleinlaan 2 / B-1050 Brussels / Belgium http://soft.vub.ac.be/~smarr Phone: +32 2 629 2974 Fax: +32 2 629 3525
participants (7)
-
Mariano Martinez Peck -
Norbert Hartl -
Philippe Marschall -
Stefan Marr -
Stephan Eggermont -
Stéphane Ducasse -
Sven Van Caekenberghe