> In general, nebraska is one of the examples (others are eToys and Genie), > that where *very cool experiments*, but where the last important step was > never done: > to learn from them and than build abstractions in the base system to make > these things implementable in a nice way. > > I know that it's sad. And some people I am sure will think this is the wrong > way to go. But we felt that cutting out complexity especially regarding > things that are > not used is important if we want to move forward.
Hi Marcus, actually I'm pretty sure most everyone on the Squeak side agrees with you here. The real difference is that Squeak wants to take the approach that we *do* that last step; make the abstractions, do the work, extricate it from Morphic, clean it up, make it loadable. For Pharo's direction and needs, Nebraska has, understandably, not been not a priority. But why don't we move forward from always highlighting philosophical (or other) differences anyway? The interesting question is, can a single refactored-Nebraska work on both Pharo and Squeak? - Chris _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
