Una vez más debo decir que estoy 100% de acuerdo con tus palabras Ale.

Justamente ayer estuve discutiendo con gente de Squeak sobre todas las
cosas perdidas desde la versión 3.8, cosas que desestimaron, basados
solamente en asunciones del ReleaseTeam (un team joven por cierto de
gente que, en general, solo "juega" con Squeak) y sin ninguna
"vigilancia" del Board.

Se perdió mucho y a cambio no se ganó nada muy importante me parece.

Me hizo acordar mucho a los "Modules" de 3.3 que inutilizaron
prácticamente todo lo hecho en 3.2.

Saludos.
Germán.


2008/9/3 Alejandro F. Reimondo <aleReimondo@...>:
> Hi,
>
>> It's generally a good idea to pick some external VM and built on top
>> of it - less work, more power, more compatibility with other
>> languages.
>
> When you build on top of some architecture you must consider
> obsolescence factors.
> From Java up today, all platforms has been discarded
> and speed of changes has been increased in the last decade.
> The recent history confirm that it will continue happening.
>
> IMHO, a better idea is to do not have a VM;
> e.g. make all operations requiered to build aplications
> in practice (and not in "abstract") manageable by the system itself
> (the system modeled in OO way or not... the same applies).
>
> Changing to another semantics can be good for someone
> that think that he has nothing to loose (e.g. someone too young
> in the industry); or for someone with very "special" needs;
> it si not something good to promote for "all the word"
> (as was done repeatedly by M$ and other recent companies
> selling that something will happen this year :)
>
> In practice, using well known semantics (e.g. smalltalk semantics)
> let companies do not loose investment in education (new
> companies and companies that use resources of others
> do not have possibility to loose, and has the freedom
> to try and waste one to 5 years, upto the next version
> of a new "refactored" concept :-)
>
> Returning to the no-VM proposal...
> Smalltalk is not a LOO, and it is not a VM design,
> it is a system that can be changed at any place
> (identity is preserved, Smalltalk is NOT it's contents
> at a point in time; it is the flow of contents in a sustainable
> system through time and guided by external actions
> -e.g. human actions-)
>
> In the past, most architectures supporting smalltalk systems
> was designed minimizing the primitive operations
> but the VM itself was implemented outside (unmanegeable by)
> the system because dynamic generation of low-level behavior
> was not possible.
> Today, there is more power for dynamic generation
> of low-level efficient code; and exists the posibility
> to reduce the (Smalltalk)VM to minimal expression,
> putting most of the operations relegated to the VM
> in the past as responsibility of objects in the system.
>
> e.g. It was frecuent, in smalltalk that lookUp and
> evaluate operations was solved in one stage as one VM
> operation and objects can´t refine/change the VM behavior.
> In recent object models desings[*], new implementations
> of object architectures where basic operations (responsibility
> of "the VM" in the past) managed by objects in the system
> are emerging; we have the posibility to extend/refine/change
> any basic behavior WITHOUT loosing robust tools
> for systems development...
>
> If we do a good work from any Smalltalk platform
> removing the VM as much as possible, it will continue
> been a Smalltalk and companies that have invested a lot
> in the past, promoting and using smalltalk, will not be
> forced to return to languages... (nor move to
> "scripting" languages)
>
> I know that the paragraphs put here can be void for
> someone young (focused in his/her future and not
> in what he/she has already done), but I also know that
> not all people/companies are happy about loosing their
> investments... again.
>
> w/best regards,
> Ale.
>
> p.d.: I have copied to Smalltalking list because we use
> to talk about this topics, but in Spanish; and I am interested
> in reflecting about how we feel when "new" alternatives
> are proposed for all-the-world ignoring peculiarities
> of people using marginal development alternatives as Smalltalk.
>
> [*] See objectsAsMethods proposal for Squeak (1999?)
> available at current Squeak implementation and Moebius
> project ( http://groups.google.com/group/moebius-project-discussion?hl=en )
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "pako" <pavlo.korzhyk@...>
> To: "Strongtalk-general" <strongtalk-general@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, September 03, 2008 6:50 AM
> Subject: Re: Using V8 for other languages
>
>>
>> It's generally a good idea to pick some external VM and built on top
>> of it - less work, more power, more compatibility with other
>> languages.
>> But using VM desgined with one language in mind - there should be
>> strong reasons for that.
>> How about Parrot VM? Dynamic languages designers is their target
>> audience.
>> And V8 is (for now) aimed at browser developers only.
>