[self-interest] StrongTalk combined with Self?
gilad.bracha at Sun.COM
Thu Jan 8 18:45:45 UTC 2004
Jonas Bosson wrote:
>Just a thought.
>Could optional typing be a way to trim Self performance?
>I spotted the Strong Talk project:
>I know that this is somewhat controversial, but it could, without
>altering what is, also bridge to other typed languages and deliver
>'pass by value...' ;-)
>Am I Wrong?
I worked on Strongtalk, and in particular on the type system.
Strongtalk typing was never intended to be used as a performance boost.
It's main value is as documentation and as a design discipline. It has
relatively small value for early error detection, and no effect on
The performance of the system came from VM technology, especially
adaptive dynamic compilation, which was very close to what Self already
does, and indeed inspired by Self. Strongtalk differed from Self in
requiring a much smaller footprint - however, Self could be engineered
to do the same (at least, Lars Bak, who worked on both Self and
Strongtalk, thought so). Another difference that might effect the
perceived responsiveness of the system was the absence of a morphic GUI
(replaced by a flyweight glyph-based GUI on top of native Windows widgets).
We did experiment with using type information for performance in one
area - floating point arithmetic. You can get around 60% of optimized C
speed on certain floating point codes, using types as a hint to the JIT,
which then verifies the type information and optimizes based on it,
stictly intra- (not inter-)procedurally. Check out the Mandelbrot demo
in the Strongtalk release to see an example.
Sun Java Software
More information about the Self-interest