> On 28 Feb 2022, at 22:04, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 28 Feb 2022, at 21:43, Max Leske <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> On 28 Feb 2022, at 20:55, Marcus Denker wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Fuel for now just ignores the whole “First class Variable” concept and
>>>>> serialises the “raw” view of indexed instance
>>>>> variables… (which is the right thing to do now), but that would not work
>>>>> here anymore.
>>>>
>>>> Good to know. I'll have to think about how this plays together with the
>>>> "classic" architecture.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is why I am in general not a fan of this idea of code trying to be
>>> compatible on that level…
>>>
>>> To me what fascinated me about Squeak was not to be slavishly compatible to
>>> ST80, but to do
>>> and do *more*. To take the philosophy and push it further… but that can
>>> *not* be done if one
>>> want to 100% backward compatible on an implementation level forever...
>>>
>>> I think my next talk at ESUG will be “Why I am not a Smalltalker”. :-)
>>
>> lol :D
>>
>> I know what you mean. I'll have to see what happens with Squeak 6. Maybe
>> we'll reach a point where it becomes easier to maintain
>> two separate versions. As long as there are users in Squeak I want to
>> support them (maybe I'll do a survey
>> in the Squeak community at that point, it could also be an option to drop
>> support for Squeak if they don't
>> use Fuel).
>>
>
> It was explained to me, when I said “We did Pharo to have a future”, that
> *nobody* in the Squeak community wants or ever wanted
> to have a future.
and that this is good for eToys.. I still do not understand that. It just made
no sense.But then, in retrospect, not much made sense with
Squeak.
You will never be able to invent the future if you do not want to have a future.
Marcus
