> I'm sorry if you guys didn't get my message, but it was as serious as it > could be.
Ok fair :) > I understand that you don't what to be backwards compatible, because it makes > it easier to change stuff. > As I see, people need various levels of backwards compatibility. Indeed but the right level is important ;) I help maintaining Moose and its several couple of tenth of packages as well as the pharoExtras packages so I think that I'm exposed to API changes. Just today I fixed the PharoSound package (full of ugly code BTW) > Currently the package maintainers are the most affected, who would like to > provide the same codebase for various versions of Pharo, and/or other > Smalltalk dialects. there is a bit of utopia there but why not. I prefer to see a system getting better than my code just loading in a system slowly improving. I can control when I want to migrate my apps. > As time passes, and the number of users increases, you'll have to give in, > and provide it some way. What I was thinking for example (and I will build it) is an automatic stub creation to support the loading of package where a class is missing in the existing system. I also love the evolution analysis made by andre that generates rules to check migration we should add automatic code transformation. I would like to keep refactoring that we can apply when people want to migrate. And we will get there because we start to have a good infrastructure. So once the infrastructure does not suck all our time then we will build the next generation tools. And this is starting :) >> We are all committed to build a robust and clean system that people can use >> to >> create their own wealth and feed their family. We are >> making HUGE progress. I mean REALLY HUGE and the space it opens is LARGE. > > I'm not following the developement of Pharo closely anymore, mainly because > it's not transparent enough for my taste. You will complain about the fogbuz stuff and we will answer that we hate that google forced us to move. And this is like that. > I see that you're making big changes, but I still haven't seen the > breakthrough: I don't see the advantage of using Pharo over another open > source Smalltalk dialect, from business point of view. It is just a question of view. For me a new compiler, debugger, inspector, filesystem, http server and many more is enough. And in addition the consortium means that slowly we will give an autonomous live to Pharo not based on free time of people. Stef
