[Pharo-project] Smalltalk as embedded platform/language?
It is very long post, so i decided to put it on my blog. http://computeradventures.wordpress.com/ i more or less realizing the scale of changes in order to achieve it, but i also wonder why we do not pay attention to this aspect.. maybe i miss something, maybe we don't need it at all. or maybe there's less painful alternatives... -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
On 3/6/12 5:35 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
It is very long post, so i decided to put it on my blog.
http://computeradventures.wordpress.com/
i more or less realizing the scale of changes in order to achieve it, but i also wonder why we do not pay attention to this aspect.. maybe i miss something, maybe we don't need it at all. or maybe there's less painful alternatives...
Igor, you're familiar with f-script? http://www.fscript.org/ Lawson.
On 7 March 2012 08:36, Lawson English <lenglish5@cox.net> wrote:
On 3/6/12 5:35 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
It is very long post, so i decided to put it on my blog.
http://computeradventures.wordpress.com/
i more or less realizing the scale of changes in order to achieve it, but i also wonder why we do not pay attention to this aspect.. maybe i miss something, maybe we don't need it at all. or maybe there's less painful alternatives...
Igor, you're familiar with f-script?
not really, why asking? I know there's plenty of alternatives.. And how do you see f-script could help us? It is objective-c (or Mac ) oriented. If you would want to use different platform , then what?
Lawson.
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
+ 1 I know personally Philippe Mougin... Can't we focus on OUR future :)? Stef
not really, why asking? I know there's plenty of alternatives.. And how do you see f-script could help us? It is objective-c (or Mac ) oriented. If you would want to use different platform , then what?
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
On 3/7/12 2:36 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
On 7 March 2012 08:36, Lawson English<lenglish5@cox.net> wrote:
[...] Igor, you're familiar with f-script?
not really, why asking? I know there's plenty of alternatives.. And how do you see f-script could help us? It is objective-c (or Mac ) oriented. If you would want to use different platform , then what?
I was pointing to f-script as an example of an existing embedded smalltalk. The biggest issue with an embedded Smalltalk, IMHO, isn't the VM but the libraries: what do you keep and why? L.
http://wingolog.org/archives/2011/10/19/the-user-in-the-loop andy wingo discuss embedded vs extensions and suggest that extension is better because you put the user on the loop with better tool support. On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Lawson English <lenglish5@cox.net> wrote:
On 3/7/12 2:36 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
On 7 March 2012 08:36, Lawson English<lenglish5@cox.net> wrote:
[...]
Igor, you're familiar with f-script?
not really, why asking? I know there's plenty of alternatives.. And how do you see f-script could help us? It is objective-c (or Mac ) oriented. If you would want to use different platform , then what?
I was pointing to f-script as an example of an existing embedded smalltalk.
The biggest issue with an embedded Smalltalk, IMHO, isn't the VM but the libraries: what do you keep and why?
L.
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Bernardo Ezequiel Contreras < vonbecmann@gmail.com> wrote:
http://wingolog.org/archives/2011/10/19/the-user-in-the-loop
andy wingo discuss embedded vs extensions and suggest that extension is better because you put the user on the loop with better tool support.
yes, but this is orthogonal. If one has a useful library in Smalltalk and a client in a C/C++ language, then embeddability is one way to provide that library to C/C++. Rolling one's own socket-based connection is another, but fraught with complications. Basically embeddability does provide something useful in the right context (hence my employer wanting me to implement it). That in no way indicates that dynamic language systems shouldn't continue to improve themselves. And being able to embed might mean that occasionally a Smalltalk application gets much wider use than might otherwise be the case.
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Lawson English <lenglish5@cox.net> wrote:
On 3/7/12 2:36 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
On 7 March 2012 08:36, Lawson English<lenglish5@cox.net> wrote:
[...]
Igor, you're familiar with f-script?
not really, why asking? I know there's plenty of alternatives.. And how do you see f-script could help us? It is objective-c (or Mac ) oriented. If you would want to use different platform , then what?
I was pointing to f-script as an example of an existing embedded smalltalk.
The biggest issue with an embedded Smalltalk, IMHO, isn't the VM but the libraries: what do you keep and why?
L.
-- best, Eliot
On 7 March 2012 19:16, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 7:40 AM, Bernardo Ezequiel Contreras <vonbecmann@gmail.com> wrote:
http://wingolog.org/archives/2011/10/19/the-user-in-the-loop
andy wingo discuss embedded vs extensions and suggest that extension is better because you put the user on the loop with better tool support.
yes, but this is orthogonal. Â If one has a useful library in Smalltalk and a client in a C/C++ language, then embeddability is one way to provide that library to C/C++. Â Rolling one's own socket-based connection is another, but fraught with complications. Â Basically embeddability does provide something useful in the right context (hence my employer wanting me to implement it). Â That in no way indicates that dynamic language systems shouldn't continue to improve themselves. Â And being able to embed might mean that occasionally a Smalltalk application gets much wider use than might otherwise be the case.
true. i barely see reason why embeddability and extensibility should be antonogized.
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Lawson English <lenglish5@cox.net> wrote:
On 3/7/12 2:36 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
On 7 March 2012 08:36, Lawson English<lenglish5@cox.net> Â wrote:
[...]
Igor, you're familiar with f-script?
not really, why asking? I know there's plenty of alternatives.. And how do you see f-script could help us? It is objective-c (or Mac ) oriented. If you would want to use different platform , then what?
I was pointing to f-script as an example of an existing embedded smalltalk.
The biggest issue with an embedded Smalltalk, IMHO, isn't the VM but the libraries: what do you keep and why?
L.
-- best, Eliot
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 7:14 AM, Lawson English <lenglish5@cox.net> wrote:
On 3/7/12 2:36 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
On 7 March 2012 08:36, Lawson English<lenglish5@cox.net> wrote:
[...]
Igor, you're familiar with f-script?
not really, why asking? I know there's plenty of alternatives.. And how do you see f-script could help us? It is objective-c (or Mac ) oriented. If you would want to use different platform , then what?
I was pointing to f-script as an example of an existing embedded smalltalk.
The biggest issue with an embedded Smalltalk, IMHO, isn't the VM but the libraries: what do you keep and why?
IMIO that's not the issue. The libraries you keep and why are those libraries that the embedder wants to use, or that support the libraries that the embedder wants to use. The VM very much determines the efficiency and complexity of such an interface. Issues such as does the garbage collector support pinning, or does the interface support call-ins from multiple threads, very much affect the design of an interface, and hence its ease of use. L.
-- best, Eliot
participants (5)
-
Bernardo Ezequiel Contreras -
Eliot Miranda -
Igor Stasenko -
Lawson English -
Stéphane Ducasse