On Oct 8, 2010, at 10:05 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> I saw this thread on the pharo list and figured that a bit of feedback from
> Michael and myself might be helpful. Please, forgive the cross-posting, this
> concerns both dialects and I'd like to make this discussion visible on the VW
> side as well.
>
> First of all, let me thank everyone for the "xtreamly" positive feedback. It
> sure feels good to get a thumbs up once in a while. So, thanks!
>
> Since there was a question earlier about availability of my ESUG slides, I'll
> also add that a rather crude and plain but usable pdf export of those is
> available on the ESUG slideshare. I'd be happy to forward the pdf to anyone
> interested as well. It's full of examples and it certainly should be easier
> to copy those from there than from the video or memory :-).
>
> As far as the future plans for Xtreams go (at least on VW side), we'd
> primarily like to validate the design with actual use, and fix any
> outstanding issues of course. We are certainly open towards collaboration
> with others on further development or porting efforts. I'd be happy to help
> sort out any porting issues (at least from the VW side).
>
> Regarding the general direction of the project, we are skeptical about the
> possibility of maintaining backward compatibility with the classic streams
> and yet being able to make the kind of changes that we're experimenting with
> in Xtreams. At this point we believe that the only practical approach is to
> let them live side by side and let people chose whichever fits better their
> needs. If Xtreams ever do gain significant acceptance there certainly is a
> very real possibility that we'll end up having to live with both frameworks,
> maybe forever. But we don't think there's practical way to somehow evolve the
> classic streams into something like Xtreams without wreaking havoc.
The best strategy.
> That's also partly why we took the liberty of changing even the basic APIs.
> They don't behave quite the same way (intentionally) in a number of cases and
> given that the two will likely have to coexist in the same context, it might
> be actually beneficial to make them distinctly different, so that it's clear
> which one is used where. Anyway, what I'm getting at is that some of the
> choices we've already made with Xtreams might be hard for us to compromise
> on, but we can certainly discuss the options. On the other hand,
> implementation changes that aid portability and don't compromise the basic
> goals are certainly a fair game. Ideally we'll be able to agree on an
> arrangement that would allow the project to co-evolve on multiple-dialects
> without the need to effectively fork the code-base. That would certainly be
> worth-while and we're definitely interested in trying to achieve that. I'll
> be at the Smalltalks 2010 conference in november and would be happy to
> discuss any details if the
> re are people interested in this.
>
> Obviously, given the license, people are free to fork the code or start from
> scratch or whatever and take it in whatever direction they see fit. I just
> want to make it clear that we are open to collaboration as long as we can
> agree on general direction. So, no hard feelings Nicolas :-), although we may
> want to sort out the naming eventually just for the sake of avoiding
> confusion in the Squeak and Pharo world (if Xtreams ever get traction there).
+ Yes
Nicolas why not
upstreams
flow
>
> Anyway, I'm now subscribed to the pharo list so I'm reachable both there and
> on vwnc.
>
> Martin
>
> "Nicolas Cellier"<[email protected]> wrote:
>> Yes that's a correct description of the past and present.
>>
>> The futur is opened, and the main options for Squeak Xtream are:
>> 1) change goals to get closer to VW - with a compatible API and lot of
>> mud underneath to glue the implementation on squeak
>> 2) stay at a proof of concept experimental level
>> 3) continue developping independantly as a replacement for Stream
>>
>> There is a lot of buzz recently, and a renewed interest in VW Xtream.
>> So there is a chance to gather enough force to attempt a squeak port,
>> whether based on Squeak Xtream experiments or not.
>> But it's not to me alone to answer this challenge.
>>
>> Nicolas
>>
>>> Sven
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
