We are using the exupery exclusively and find that it works for out needs better than the squeak.
On Tue, Jan 19, 2010 at 12:46 PM, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> wrote: > I would not put the stexupery as first vm because the squeak one should be > more tested. > > Stef > > On Jan 19, 2010, at 2:40 PM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote: > >> Ok...so: pharo exupery vm as FTPlugin compiled and 3.11. doesn't. And both >> are closure-enable. >> >> Does someone have a compiled squeak-unix-vm with FTPlugin ? because >> otherwise, I think I would rather to put again Exupery as the default one. >> >> Opinions? >> >> 2010/1/19 George Herolyants <[email protected]> >> So, here are the results (see attachments). On the background of each >> pharo screenshot you can see the version number of the vm, and command >> line I used to run pharo image with this vm. >> As you can see results are far better for the pharo-exupery-linux-vm >> (which means 0.15.2f), because it has FTPlugin compiled, and >> squeak-unix-vm (which means 3.11.3-2135) hasn't. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
