On Jun 20, 2009, at 5:37 PM, Janko Mivšek wrote:
> Hi Marcus,
>
> I agree that compatibility reduce possibility to evolve/improve the
> system. But on the other hand being not compatible you risk to stay
> alone.
>
> I think that everything lyes in clever judgment: how much to sty
> compatible and how much go into new, fresh and deeper waters.
yes
we will see.
> I'm sure it is good not to touch the Smalltalk core things like
> syntax and this
> is even not needed, Smalltalk fathers did a really good job to make
> its
> syntax eternally useful and feature complete.
exact. The Smalltalk syntax is nearly good. We have one for scripting
in addition.
> Libraries are something to evolve, but again very carefully the
> fundamental parts (collections,...) while other, like GUI, well, here
> are a lot of opportunities to evolve.
We will certainly touch the MOP (or its absence in Smalltalk).
I want a safer Smalltalk
I want security concept
cool sandbox
cool module
may be new concurrency model
new compilers
well modularised system
fast loading
I would love to have cool visibility mechanism
pluggable type systems
> Best regards
> Janko
>
> P.S.: Yes, that's how I evolve Aida/Web. Some parts are fixed, while
> other evolve like crazy. Without much compatibility hassles, so far.
May be at the end we will fork again and create something for
researcher only
but at least starting from a clean system. I see that as sound
evolution.
Stef
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
