From: Bill Guindon Date: 2005-04-08T13:28:23+09:00 Subject: Re: Seven new VMs, all in a row On Apr 8, 2005 12:19 AM, Phil Tomson wrote: > In article <67a2229205040719147fec0f8a@mail.gmail.com>, > Bill Guindon wrote: > >On Apr 7, 2005 10:04 PM, Phil Tomson wrote: > >> In article <20050407220145.GI23956@garnet.tc.umn.edu>, > >> Thomas E Enebo wrote: > >> >On Fri, 08 Apr 2005, Lothar Scholz defenestrated me: > >> >> > >> >> Yes maybe its possible to transfer part of the language (all?) into an > >> >> smalltalk VM. But you can never get all the binary extensions to work, > >> >> an emulation layer would kill all your speed benefits if possible > >> >> at all. So maybe you should simply announce a ruby branch called > >SmallRuby, > >> >> since this would not have so much todo with the current ruby anymore. > >> > > >> > OTOH, if it is 30x faster and makes an alternate implementation of socket > >> > >> I'm very skeptical about the 30x faster claim. > >> > > > >I might be skeptical, but if I voice my skepticism loud enough, I may > >discourage those who might try (and may succeed). > > > >So yeah... I think that 30x faster is quite possible ;-) > > > > Please, prove my skepticism to be wrong. I leave that job to Peter, my job is to encourage him to try. > A Ruby that was 30x faster (on > the same hardware) would be great. As I said in the other post > responding to Avi, if it's possible to speed things up that much with a > SmallTalk VM, maybe we should be studying said VM to figure out how to > make it happen in YARV (since matz has recently said that YARV is the > future VM for Ruby). Agreed, and I hope Peter considers that, but if he's hell bent on building one on top of a SmallTalk VM, then I say go right ahead, and if it works, we can dissect that later. -- Bill Guindon (aka aGorilla)