On Apr 8, 2005 12:19 AM, Phil Tomson <ptkwt / aracnet.com> wrote:
> In article <67a2229205040719147fec0f8a / mail.gmail.com>,
> Bill Guindon  <agorilla / gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Apr 7, 2005 10:04 PM, Phil Tomson <ptkwt / aracnet.com> wrote:
> >> In article <20050407220145.GI23956 / garnet.tc.umn.edu>,
> >> Thomas E Enebo  <enebo / acm.org> 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)