IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / Theory and Practice of Programming Forum / You must cheat - but you must not get caught
Post #110,862
by tuberculosis
Picture of tuberculosis
7/22/03 10:19:58 AM
8/21/07 5:44:33 AM
Reply
New You must cheat - but you must not get caught
Dan Ingalls said that I think - referring to optimization of certain messages (like ifTrue:) by the compiler. The compiler will cheat on certain highly used messages to improve performance - but its generally not visible to the developer that this is going on.


Smalltalk is dangerous. It is a drug. My advice to you would be don't try it; it could ruin your life. Once you take the time to learn it (to REALLY learn it) you will see that there is nothing out there (yet) to touch it. Of course, like all drugs, how dangerous it is depends on your character. It may be that once you've got to this stage you'll find it difficult (if not impossible) to "go back" to other languages and, if you are forced to, you might become an embittered character constantly muttering ascerbic comments under your breath. Who knows, you may even have to quit the software industry altogether because nothing else lives up to your new expectations.
--AndyBower
Collapse Edited by tuberculosis Aug. 21, 2007, 05:44:33 AM EDT
You must cheat - but you must not get caught
Dan Ingalls said that I think - referring to optimization of certain messages (like ifTrue:) by the compiler. The compiler will cheat on certain highly used messages to improve performance - but its generally not visible to the developer that this is going on.


Smalltalk is dangerous. It is a drug. My advice to you would be don't try it; it could ruin your life. Once you take the time to learn it (to REALLY learn it) you will see that there is nothing out there (yet) to touch it. Of course, like all drugs, how dangerous it is depends on your character. It may be that once you've got to this stage you'll find it difficult (if not impossible) to "go back" to other languages and, if you are forced to, you might become an embittered character constantly muttering ascerbic comments under your breath. Who knows, you may even have to quit the software industry altogether because nothing else lives up to your new expectations.
--AndyBower
Collapse All History
Post #110,864
by bluke
7/22/03 10:29:29 AM
7/22/03 10:31:22 AM
Reply
New Yes exactly
It is clear that the VM is not going to actually send a message for a := 5 + 3. the performance would be horrible. The VM cheats where appropriate and hopefully the developer doesn't notice a difference (which is why Smalltalk can present everything as an object including so called primitive types like integers, etc., and still offer good performance, the VM knows that 5 is an integer and therefore treats it differently in most cases). The various Smalltalk VM's are very good at this (in fact the whole Hotspot compiler idea came from a Smalltalk implementation).
Expand Edited by bluke July 22, 2003, 10:31:22 AM EDT
Expand All History
Post #111,003
by Ashton
7/22/03 9:19:49 PM
Reply
New Hmmm sounds as if
Smalltalk's efficacy relies critically upon a very Smart Wise compiler. One wonders how wisdom + Boolean ever once came to be comingled. And if such stellar virtuosity could ever again occur. From the gossip read over years - I gather that this was a Fluke, given the variety of C-class and other successors' non-Wisdom.. so frequently dissected and railed about.



OK.. never mind. No credentials here.

Ashton
Post #111,008
by tuberculosis
Picture of tuberculosis
7/22/03 9:49:03 PM
8/21/07 5:51:46 AM
Reply
New Not *so* clever
There is a table of a few selectors that are handled specially by the compiler. You can change the table and recompile everything in the system. Of course, only the VM/compiler tweakers do this. But the language itself is dead simple.

For those interested in the original book detailing how it all works:

[link|http://users.ipa.net/~dwighth/smalltalk/bluebook/bluebook_imp_toc.html|http://users.ipa.net...book_imp_toc.html]


Smalltalk is dangerous. It is a drug. My advice to you would be don't try it; it could ruin your life. Once you take the time to learn it (to REALLY learn it) you will see that there is nothing out there (yet) to touch it. Of course, like all drugs, how dangerous it is depends on your character. It may be that once you've got to this stage you'll find it difficult (if not impossible) to "go back" to other languages and, if you are forced to, you might become an embittered character constantly muttering ascerbic comments under your breath. Who knows, you may even have to quit the software industry altogether because nothing else lives up to your new expectations.
--AndyBower
Expand Edited by tuberculosis Aug. 21, 2007, 05:51:46 AM EDT
Expand All History
     Message Object Oriented vs Function Object Oriented - (JimWeirich) - (71) - July 21, 2003, 12:57:05 PM EDT
         It's not so much a Language issue... - (ChrisR) - (28) - July 21, 2003, 01:30:46 PM EDT
             Mind Games - (JimWeirich) - (27) - July 21, 2003, 03:35:18 PM EDT
                 The biggest difference is how one treats the interaction - (ChrisR) - (26) - July 21, 2003, 04:30:20 PM EDT
                     Now a Language Issue again - (JimWeirich) - (25) - July 21, 2003, 04:52:33 PM EDT
                         Is it "missing methods" or "invalid messages" it handles? - (CRConrad) - (23) - July 21, 2003, 05:04:43 PM EDT
                             Both. - (admin) - (22) - July 21, 2003, 05:08:28 PM EDT
                                 Sorry, I don't think you quite understood what I meant. - (CRConrad) - (21) - July 21, 2003, 05:28:58 PM EDT
                                     Needlessly pedantic, IMO. - (admin) - (20) - July 21, 2003, 05:32:53 PM EDT
                                         OK, so why don't we do it that way, then... - (CRConrad) - (8) - July 21, 2003, 05:47:53 PM EDT
                                             Lose the chip... -NT - (admin) - (3) - July 21, 2003, 05:49:48 PM EDT
                                                 OK, bye, then. (Heard anything from Addison, lately?) -NT - (CRConrad) - (2) - July 21, 2003, 06:02:31 PM EDT
                                                     Suit yourself. -NT - (admin) - July 21, 2003, 06:03:29 PM EDT
                                                     You can do it (new thread) - (orion) - July 21, 2003, 07:41:37 PM EDT
                                             FOO bad. MOO good. - (ChrisR) - (2) - July 21, 2003, 06:12:31 PM EDT
                                                 Mooooooo. -NT - (admin) - July 21, 2003, 06:16:14 PM EDT
                                                 Re: FOO bad. MOO good. - (JimWeirich) - July 21, 2003, 06:31:36 PM EDT
                                             Re: OK, so why don't we do it that way, then... - (JimWeirich) - July 21, 2003, 06:35:39 PM EDT
                                         Method VS Message - (JimWeirich) - (10) - July 21, 2003, 06:42:26 PM EDT
                                             Sure. -NT - (admin) - July 21, 2003, 06:56:59 PM EDT
                                             Re: Method VS Message - (tuberculosis) - (8) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:42:37 AM EDT
                                                 Re: Method VS Message - (deSitter) - (7) - July 21, 2003, 11:42:24 PM EDT
                                                     Didn't you finish that smalltalk history doc Todd showed us? - (FuManChu) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 12:49:34 AM EDT
                                                         Re: Didn't you finish that smalltalk history doc Todd showed - (deSitter) - July 22, 2003, 12:59:53 AM EDT
                                                     In theory yes, in practice no - (bluke) - (4) - July 22, 2003, 06:01:52 AM EDT
                                                         You must cheat - but you must not get caught - (tuberculosis) - (3) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:44:33 AM EDT
                                                             Yes exactly - (bluke) - (2) - July 22, 2003, 10:31:22 AM EDT
                                                                 Hmmm sounds as if - (Ashton) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 09:19:49 PM EDT
                                                                     Not *so* clever - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:51:46 AM EDT
                         At that level, it is a language issue... - (ChrisR) - July 21, 2003, 05:32:00 PM EDT
         DoesNotUnderstand - (tuberculosis) - (6) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:42:14 AM EDT
             Reified Messages - (JimWeirich) - (1) - July 21, 2003, 06:50:52 PM EDT
                 Sounds about right to me -NT - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:42:32 AM EDT
             Re: DoesNotUnderstand - (deSitter) - (3) - July 21, 2003, 11:45:13 PM EDT
                 nil is an object -NT - (admin) - (2) - July 22, 2003, 08:04:50 AM EDT
                     Re: nil is an object - (deSitter) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 10:07:10 AM EDT
                         Re: nil is an object - (bluke) - July 22, 2003, 10:49:10 AM EDT
         ICLRPD - (static) - July 21, 2003, 10:53:46 PM EDT
         It is a fundamental difference - (bluke) - (30) - July 22, 2003, 05:56:45 AM EDT
             More Questions - (JimWeirich) - (9) - July 22, 2003, 06:28:12 AM EDT
                 Re: More Questions - (bluke) - (3) - July 22, 2003, 07:23:18 AM EDT
                     Re: More Questions - (JimWeirich) - (2) - July 22, 2003, 07:54:36 AM EDT
                         It relates more to the mindset - (bluke) - July 22, 2003, 08:03:03 AM EDT
                         In past discussions with Freep... - (ChrisR) - July 22, 2003, 09:52:34 AM EDT
                 Where does polymorphism fit in? - (static) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 08:42:30 AM EDT
                     Polymorphism via inheritance/interface - (ChrisR) - July 22, 2003, 09:37:43 AM EDT
                 Example - (tuberculosis) - (1) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:45:22 AM EDT
                     Re: Example - (JimWeirich) - July 22, 2003, 11:45:27 AM EDT
                 Statically Typed Smalltalk - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:45:29 AM EDT
             Statically Typed MOO - (JimWeirich) - (19) - July 22, 2003, 10:41:22 AM EDT
                 The other possible avenue - (ChrisR) - (18) - July 22, 2003, 10:47:24 AM EDT
                     Do you know how they do that? - (bluke) - (17) - July 22, 2003, 10:54:10 AM EDT
                         Compiler generates the necessary calls - (ChrisR) - July 22, 2003, 11:02:54 AM EDT
                         AspectJ is code generation - (tuberculosis) - (15) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:46:10 AM EDT
                             A comment and a question ... - (JimWeirich) - (12) - July 22, 2003, 02:19:07 PM EDT
                                 Not really - (tuberculosis) - (11) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:46:27 AM EDT
                                     Pushing the limits of Blanchard's Law - (JimWeirich) - (10) - July 22, 2003, 03:57:21 PM EDT
                                         I don't think the basic argument is so much - (ChrisR) - (8) - July 22, 2003, 04:09:32 PM EDT
                                             Re: I don't think the basic argument is so much - (JimWeirich) - (7) - July 22, 2003, 04:35:10 PM EDT
                                                 Should probably let Todd defend his Laws....but.... :-) - (ChrisR) - (6) - July 22, 2003, 05:03:54 PM EDT
                                                     Still sounds arbitrary ... - (JimWeirich) - (5) - July 22, 2003, 05:14:31 PM EDT
                                                         On par with "Eval" - (ChrisR) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 05:20:45 PM EDT
                                                             Well said -NT - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:51:08 AM EDT
                                                         No its not - (tuberculosis) - (2) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:51:13 AM EDT
                                                             Ok, I get it. - (JimWeirich) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 07:48:18 PM EDT
                                                                 Yep -NT - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 21, 2007, 05:51:33 AM EDT
                                         Oh yeah - (FuManChu) - July 22, 2003, 04:28:15 PM EDT
                             What is your reasoning for this "law"? - (ben_tilly) - (1) - Sept. 21, 2003, 05:20:53 PM EDT
                                 OT re: coming to this thread late - (drewk) - Sept. 22, 2003, 10:32:55 AM EDT
         Litmus Test - (JimWeirich) - (1) - July 22, 2003, 07:03:41 AM EDT
             Yes and No - (bluke) - July 22, 2003, 07:34:46 AM EDT
         Interesting comp.lang.smalltalk thread on this - (bluke) - July 22, 2003, 08:16:51 AM EDT

This results in serious pain.
137 ms