People mistake my notion of a platform having a stable core so that it can be
built on, with never changing that core one bit. A stable, evolving core is
precisely what allows rapid and flexible new product improvement.
Wasn’t that the whole point of deprecation rather than replacement? It gives
developers of a given product a version or two to update their code when the
base evolves.
It’s a mystery to me overall though, as well.
Andrew
From: Marcus Denker
Sent: Thursday, November 9, 2017 8:48 AM
To: Any question about pharo is welcome
Subject: Re: [Pharo-users] Writing "powerpoint" like presentations in Pharo?
On 9 Nov 2017, at 14:22, Offray Vladimir Luna Cárdenas
<offray.l...@mutabit.com> wrote:
Sophie looked very promising... Unfortunately it was not open source and died
before porting it to Java (following the Illuminati conspiracy of porting
Smalltalk break througts to "inferior" technology, as happens once and again
:-P).
Sophie was one of the reason I got so, umm, upset? about Squeak… I mean even
though the project failed, the results where on a level that
they could have been used to improve Squeak quite radically. All the base
technology was more or less finished and working
(maybe a bit complex at times, cf. Tweak…).
I still do not understand why everyone back then had this “Squeak is
untouchable, you can only build on top or you are an evil person” view
of the world.
Just imagine the people who did Sophie would have done their work by
*contributing* to Squeak in a serious way (in the sense of evolving it into the
next
thing). The resulting system would have been amazing.
The fact that Sophie failed as a project would have been not important *at all*.
You could finance an amazing platform by just doing failed projects. As long as
you do them open source and feed back the results.
The same happened with everything Etoys, with everything Croquet. And even
though there where people working on all these things
at the same time. To me this is a mystery. It made no sense, at all.
Marcus
