-----Mensaje original----- De: squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org] En nombre de nicolas cellier Enviado el: Jueves, 25 de Octubre de 2007 17:40 Para: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Asunto: Re: Multy-core CPUs
But Smalltalk methods are sequential procedures by nature, so having a process per object maybe would adress mutual exclusion problem, but will not introduce parallelism per se.
But that's a black hole which I don't want to enter nor be near. I never wanted to introduce parallelism per se. What I do want is *just* to get a Smalltalk that can conveniently balance the cpu load in an arbitrary quantity of cores.
Someone has to decide to break execution sequential path into
....
PS: for fun, what happens to all-is-object paradigm if each and every object has a MessageQueue object? What is the MessageQueue of the MessageQueue of ...
LOL.. Good question kind of class Metaclass Moebious thing
Cheers,
Sebastian