Back to the future in one week - implementing a Smalltalk VM in PyPy

We report on our experiences with the Spy project, including implementation details and benchmark results. Spy is a re-implementation of the Squeak (i.e., Smalltalk-80) VM using the PyPy toolchain. The PyPy project allows code written in RPython, a subset of Python, to be translated to a multitude of different backends and architectures. During the translation, many aspects of the implementation can be independently tuned, such as the garbage collection algorithm or threading implementation. In this way, a whole host of interpreters can be derived from one abstract interpreter definition. Spy aims to bring these benefits to Squeak, allowing for greater portability and, eventually, improved performance. The current Spy codebase is able to run a small set of benchmarks that demonstrate performance superior to many similar Smalltalk VMs, but which still run slower than in Squeak itself. Spy was built from scratch over the course of a week during a joint Squeak-PyPy Sprint in Bern last autumn.

Is a sustaining rod necessary for diverting loop ileostomy?

Objective: Whether or not a protective stoma reduces the rate of anastomotic leakage after distal colorectal anastomosis is still discussed controversially. It does however facilitate clinical management once leakage has occurred. Loop ileostomies seem to be associated with a lower morbidity and a better quality of life compared to loop colostomies. Generally, diverting loop ileostomies are secured at skin level by means of a supporting device in order to prevent retraction of the ileostomy into the abdomen. However, due to the supporting rod, difficulties may occur in applying a stoma bag correctly and leakage of faeces onto the skin may occur even with correct eversion of the afferent limb. Our aim was to compare morbidity and time to self-sufficient stoma-care in patients having a loop ileostomy with rod to those without rod. Methods: A total of 60 patients necessitating loop ileostomy were analyzed. Patients received surgery in of the two involved institutions according to inhouse standard procedures. 30 patients had an ileostomy with rod (VCHK Inselspital) and a further 30 without rod (KSW Winterthur). Morbidity and time to self-sufficiency regarding stoma care was analyzed during the first 90 postoperative days. Morbidity was determined according to a scoring system ranging from 0 to 4 points for any given set of possible complications (bleeding, necrosis, skin irritation, abscess, stenosis, retraction, fistula, prolapse, parastomal hernia, incomplete diversion), where 0 = no complication and 4 = severe complication. Continuous variables were expressed as median (95% Confidence Interval). For comparisons between the groups the Mann-Whitney U test was used, between categorical variables the X2 test was applied. Results: There were no significant differences in length of hospital stay or time to self-sufficient stoma-care between the groups. Although not significant, patients with a rod ileostomy had a tendency towards more stoma-related complications as well as stoma-related reoperations. The number of patients reaching total self-sufficiency regarding stoma care was higher after rodless ileostomy. Conclusion: According to our data, rodless ileostomies seemto fare just as well as those with a supporting rod, with equal morbidity rates and more patients reaching self-sufficient stoma care. Therefore routine application of a rod for diverting loop ileostomy seems unnecessary