|
Making Squeak Fly ( Was: Re: Where Squeak is Headed [was: Module discussion: msg#00315lang.smalltalk.squeak.general
Dan -- Are you / is anybody doing work on typing a la StrongTalk? To quote from your post awhile ago in the "Animorphic ST (Strongtalk) released!" thread: >> Would the system benefit from being cast into StrongTalk? >> and how much work would this be? By "would the system benefit" I assume that you meant primarily something like what you said in the same post: >> I think type annotations are useful as documentation, and I have always felt (and often said) that a Smalltalk with optional types would be an ideal computing environment. It really >> fills a hole in the metasystem. I know there was a lot of discussion about this question., on that thread. In light of that discussion and further reflection, do you think there is a compelling case for introducing Squeak-friendly types system? Also, has anybody done the analysis on how much work would have to be done? >> Would anyone care if it ran 10 times faster? OK, I'm an ignoramus. Let's call the speed gains from typing a la StrongTalk, A, and let's call the speed gains from J5, B. Would J5 and types together equal a speed improvement of A + B? Or does the stuff Ian is doing with J5 involve some kind of magic typing behind-the-scenes, so that A + B ~ B? Dan Ingalls wrote:
|
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | A final thoughtRe: Where Squeak is Headed [was: Module discussion], Stephane Ducasse |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Making Squeak Fly ( Was: Re: Where Squeak is Headed [was: Module discussion] ), Brent Vukmer |
| Previous by Thread: | A final thoughtRe: Where Squeak is Headed [was: Module discussion], Stephane Ducasse |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Making Squeak Fly ( Was: Re: Where Squeak is Headed [was: Module discussion] ), Brent Vukmer |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |