On Jun 21, 2009, at 12:27 PM, Norbert Hartl wrote: > On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 21:46 +0200, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: >> + 100000000 :) >> >> I want to invent a reasonable future :) >> > Your (Marcus and yours) mails sound a bit strange to me. Please let us > not do this separation between academia and industria again. I don't > think there is any option but to try to have both: stability and > improvements. There should be a core that is as common as possible. > And > no, having a common core is not _the_ reason for not be able to change > anything. For me that were the reasons to fork off from squeak.
Exact :) > This dialect thing in smalltalk is really ridiculous. You cannot use > such basic things like networking even across two different dialects. > So you have to stay inside your own world/box. That is IMHO highly > in- > appropriate for these times. But I know some reasons why it is like > this and that's the reason I can live with it. But there is room for > improvement we should not miss. totally true. > And I hope you can see that the support > for basic technologies in smalltalk is way behind. unfortunately > The beauty and the > strength of the language of smalltalk only lays within itself. > > Maybe I got you wrong but this mails triggered something in me so > hence > the more harsh tone :) No problem, we are discussing :) Now we should not get trapped in the backward compatible compatibility with X and Z. > > Norbert > > On Jun 20, 2009, at 5:22 PM, Marcus Denker wrote: >> >>> >>> On 20.06.2009, at 10:52, 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. >>>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> One huge problem with compatibility is always that it reduces any >>> possibility >>> in evolving/improving the system. If the goal is to be compatible to >>> e.g. >>> all of Smalltalk X, Visualworks, Squeak, Gemstone.... than, in the >>> end, this means we can not >>> do anything anymore, and, most importantly: we can not do any *fun* >>> things anymore. >>> >>> Beeing compatible means reducing what you do to the subset of all >>> the >>> dialects, and than >>> stop doing anything. >>> >>> If I you should choose between a) "inventing the future" and b) "be >>> compatible to VisualWorks", >>> what would you take? >>> >>> And I personally have already choosen for the "inventing the future" >>> route, I guess. It makes >>> no sense to be in Research (and beeing payed those wonderful tiny >>> salaries) and than do boring stuff. >>> That makes no sense. >>> >>> I personally think that the possibility and duty of working on >>> interesting things is part of the >>> overall compensation package of people in Research. >>> >>> Marcus >>> >>> -- >>> Marcus Denker - http://marcusdenker.de >>> PLEIAD Lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
