I agree with Stef that Pharo needs code that is easy to understand , because code that is easy to understand is far more likely to be maintained.�� There is little value to boosted performance if you come face to face with show stopper bugs that never get fixed because none dares touch them.

Also I am still not convinced that NB is as fast as people claim to be unless I see a very detailed performance test suite that compares NB vs other FFIs side by side. So far it seems to me that people are easily convinced that NB is fast because its based on Assembly code but that is debatable since C is perfectly capable to generate heavily optimized machine code.

The one thing that makes NB cool for me is that it can generate machine code on the fly the only downside is that is uses Assembly, which is very verbose and too low level. If NB used C type of syntax for Pharo I think it would be ideal . It would allow you to write C code using Pharo syntax and without a need for a compiler or compiling / linking.

In any case none stops anyone from moving NB forward as a third party library.�� I know I wont be one to do so ;)