On Thu, 9 Sep 2010, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Why are you so aggressive against us?
I didn't mean to be aggressive, I just don't think your idea will work
well.
Now if you want status quo why do you even commit in squeak?
I'm not against changes.
Now I'm not sure that this is the kind of
I think the end of the sentence got lost somewhere.
Isn't Grease dialect dependent by essence ?
If Pharo and Squeak diverge, then there will naturally be two versions
of Grease...
However, for these two messages, I think Pharo core should integrate
them and align with Squeak. The question is more whether you need to
distinguish Grease-Pharo1_1 from Grease-Pharo1_2 ...
Probably else this means that Pharo and any system is bound to die because
it does not change.
The rapid changes and no-backwards-compatibility you prefer and advocate are not
essential for a Smalltalk system to "stay alive". Just look at VSE, it didn't
change in the last 10 years, and people are still using it.
In constrast Pharo 1.0 was considered abandonware four months after it's release, which
caused trouble for some users who didn't think that they'll have to patch their code and
rebuild their images to "get" updates/fixes.
Pharo1.0 is not abandoned at all. Since 1.0 we got more than 1000 bugs closed.
The versions are just a way to have milestones. Now there is no problem you
think otherwise
So if I have a Pharo 1.0 image with my code and I don't want to rebuild
the image, then how can I update it to 1.1?
Levente
Stef
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
