4 ms·
Despite being a totally different language based around message passing with no control structures? None of those are insurmountable, they merely make writing
by orf 5y ago
Despite being a totally different language based around message passing with no control structures?
None of those are insurmountable, they merely make writing a JIT harder if you want to support them: it’s hard to inline a function call if the inclining can have a visible effect.
- pjmlp 5y agoThat is the whole point, it doesn't get more dynamic than that.
- orf 5y agoI’d say the lack of control flow structures and message passing would make it far, far easier to JIT.
- pjmlp 5y agoIf that was the case, there would be no need for StrongTalk.
- orf 5y agoCan you really not think of any other benefits?
- pjmlp 5y agoI certainly can, and I can also think of several examples of dynamic languages that succeed where Python fails. All of them just as dynamic, if not more.
- orf 5y agoIf you can think of other benefits to Strongtalk other than “it makes jit compiling better” then why say that there is no reason for it to exist if Smalltalk’s design makes it easy to JIT?
- pjmlp 5y agoPython is not even able to do the basic Smalltalk part, so it doesn't matter what StrongTalk brings into the picture.
- orf 5y agoOk now we are on the same page about there being a need for Strongtalk other than “it may or may not JIT better” we will loop back a few comments and try again: I’d say the lack of control flow structures and message passing would make it far, far easier to JIT.