On Jun 20, 2009, at 4:52 PM, Cameron Sanders wrote: > They could probably all learn from the other flavors. In fact, the > cross-smalltalk portability is a negative for smalltalk. > > I believe I tried smalltalk/X... that's the natively-compiled one, > right? So it feels like C++ if you change a root class -- or am I > confusing it with another? I'm on a new platform and can't check what > all I installed last year, at the moment.
not at all Smalltalk/X looks like VW. May be you tried MTSmalltalk > I like the idea of a compiled version!! And there would be a place for > it in my world, *if* I could take code from Pharo and load it into > say, Smalltalk/X, and have it work without a month-long debugging > session. what is important for pharo is not to be backward compatible else we are dead. > > -Cam > > > On Jun 20, 2009, at 1:01 AM, Rudi Engelbrecht wrote: > >> Have you looked at Smalltalk/X? > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
