On 31/10/2007, Jason Johnson jason.johnson.081@gmail.com wrote:
On 10/31/07, Igor Stasenko siguctua@gmail.com wrote:
I don't know what to add to above. I just said that we should use approaches which is best fit for architecture where our project(s) will run on. Of course what is best fit is arguable. But i don't think we should drop a shared memory model support when we building a system on top of architecture which haves it.
So what we can build must be constrained by an implementation detail that's not even visible to us [1]? If I had seen this on a C++ list I wouldn't be so surprised but Smalltalk? :)
But why smalltalk? I'm talking about VM, which is much closer to hardware than smalltalk. As you know a squeak VM are compiled from C sources. You are free to use any model you want in smalltalk, but for VM?
[1] Obviously we don't because Intel and AMD don't handle shared memory access the same way. AMD already does something a bit closer to message passing: http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/cpu/rmma-numa.html