[Pharo-project] [OT] RTalk
Hi dimitris, if I remember correctly the idea from Mark Roos was to open source the environment/code once the company dependent parts are removed. AFAIK with an MIT license. For sure one can expect the bytecodeset and environment to be completely different from what we know from Squeak/Pharo. Some infos can be found on the web, see pointers below - but no code so far. Time will tell if it's ideas may be used to have later a Pharo dialect running on JVM as well (depending on community adoption, time, resources and technical possibility). It's not the first project to run Smalltalk on JVM. Its very silent around similar attempts like the last project "Redline" from James Ladd. At least it is active (last commit for Redline was 3 days ago). Bye T. [1] http://www.drdobbs.com/jvm/rtalk-smalltalk-on-the-jvm/231500288 [2] http://wiki.jvmlangsummit.com/images/e/e5/Roos-Rtalk.pdf [3] http://astares.blogspot.de/2011/08/smalltalk-on-jvm.html [4] http://medianetwork.oracle.com/video/player/1785452097001
Hey Torsten and thanks for the reply. I am not here to recommend pharo to move to JVM. Rtalk author also mention this, moving a language to another platform like JVM is quite easy , at least for people who are much better coders than me, moving all the libraries which happen to depend a lot on C is not. I was primarily a python developer before smalltalk , squeak and pharo stole me away and we got a similar effort with "jython" , as a language is a fine implementation but still there are many of the official python distribution, cpython , third party libraries that have not been ported to jython. Of course we can still use Java libraries but that defeats the purpose of coding in python which is like smalltalk a culture about simplicity and minimalism (python has been deeply influenced by smalltalk in many areas) , that most java libraries and java itself do not share. My interest in Rtalk is for the time being pure academical. I am actually doing a visual coding environment for 3d app Blender which is more an extension to smalltalk enviroment called "Ephestos" and I am already using pharo, because its rather clean, simple, stable and actively developed. Because blender depends on python I am already in the process of making a socket bridge between pharo and blender python (should work for any other platform too) . Java VM is also a possibility through the use of this projects. Of course I am still considering the redline , but having something that can offer me even enviroment of smalltalk for JAVA VM its even better. For the time being as I already said my interest is purely academical, my whole focus is existing pharo , blender and cpython. But its fun to try new things and explore new territories. You can never be sure what kind treasures you may uncover. Afterall in blender we have already blender addon which even though they are depending on python they also use Java libraries. So mixing languages and platforms is certainly an interest of mine. In my world Pharo, Rtalk and Redline can happily coexist without the one merging to the other. ________________________________ From: Torsten Bergmann <astares@gmx.de> To: pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Sent: Tuesday, 30 October 2012, 16:39 Subject: [Pharo-project] [OT] RTalk Hi dimitris, if I remember correctly the idea from Mark Roos was to open source the environment/code once the company dependent parts are removed. AFAIK with an MIT license. For sure one can expect the bytecodeset and environment to be completely different from what we know from Squeak/Pharo. Some infos can be found on the web, see pointers below - but no code so far. Time will tell if it's ideas may be used to have later a Pharo dialect running on JVM as well (depending on community adoption, time, resources and technical possibility). It's not the first project to run Smalltalk on JVM. Its very silent around similar attempts like the last project "Redline" from James Ladd. At least it is active (last commit for Redline was 3 days ago). Bye T. [1] http://www.drdobbs.com/jvm/rtalk-smalltalk-on-the-jvm/231500288 [2] http://wiki.jvmlangsummit.com/images/e/e5/Roos-Rtalk.pdf [3] http://astares.blogspot.de/2011/08/smalltalk-on-jvm.html [4] http://medianetwork.oracle.com/video/player/1785452097001
On 30/10/12 15:39, dimitris chloupis wrote:
Hey Torsten and thanks for the reply.
I am not here to recommend pharo to move to JVM. Rtalk author also mention this, moving a language to another platform like JVM is quite easy ,
I've spent quite some time playing with Java and JVM. I don't think in case of Smalltalk language it would be exactly 'quite easy' to move to JVM. There are certain constructs, prevalent in Smalltalk codebase, that would be tricky to implement *efficiently* on JVM. Non-local returns, proceedable exceptions, class extensions, snapshotting to name some. Best, Jan at least for people who are much better coders than me, moving
all the libraries which happen to depend a lot on C is not.
On 2012-10-30, at 18:39, Jan Vrany <jan.vrany@fit.cvut.cz> wrote:
On 30/10/12 15:39, dimitris chloupis wrote:
Hey Torsten and thanks for the reply.
I am not here to recommend pharo to move to JVM. Rtalk author also mention this, moving a language to another platform like JVM is quite easy ,
I've spent quite some time playing with Java and JVM. I don't think in case of Smalltalk language it would be exactly 'quite easy' to move to JVM. There are certain constructs, prevalent in Smalltalk codebase, that would be tricky to implement *efficiently* on JVM. Non-local returns, proceedable exceptions, class extensions, snapshotting to name some.
not to mention instance migration! (which might be circumvented in non-development mode)
Well according to the author of RTalk , he never intended for this to be a full implementation of smalltalk , but later in his video presentation mentions that RTalk ended being a full implementation of DigiTalk which is the smalltalk his company was using for its legacy code. He actually does special mentions how he implemented non local returns. He even claims that not only he was able to replicate all digitalk bytecode but even instruct JVM to construct bytecode unrelated to Java. But me being a total beginner with smalltalk means I could as well misunderstood his presentations. Of course without having an opportunity to take a look at the actual code this is just a moot point. ----- Original Message ----- From: Camillo Bruni <camillobruni@gmail.com> To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr Cc: Sent: Tuesday, 30 October 2012, 23:18 Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] [OT] RTalk On 2012-10-30, at 18:39, Jan Vrany <jan.vrany@fit.cvut.cz> wrote:
On 30/10/12 15:39, dimitris chloupis wrote:
Hey Torsten and thanks for the reply.
I am not here to recommend pharo to move to JVM. Rtalk author also mention this, moving a language to another platform like JVM is quite easy ,
I've spent quite some time playing with Java and JVM. I don't think in case of Smalltalk language it would be exactly 'quite easy' to move to JVM. There are certain constructs, prevalent in Smalltalk codebase, that would be tricky to implement *efficiently* on JVM. Non-local returns, proceedable exceptions, class extensions, snapshotting to name some.
not to mention instance migration! (which might be circumvented in non-development mode)
participants (4)
-
Camillo Bruni -
dimitris chloupis -
Jan Vrany -
Torsten Bergmann