On 21 Dec 2010, at 19:16, Levente Uzonyi wrote: > a) removing unessential code from Squeak (Squeak, having started as a > children.s education project, has accumulated a fair amount of cruft over the > years), > b) clearer licensing (MIT license), > c) more frequent updates (think Ubuntu versus Debian), and > d) being a reference implementation for the Seaside platform (perfect, > exactly what I need it for)." > > b) and c) are clearly false. a) ignores the fact that you can unload quite a > lot of "cruft" from Squeak making it comparable to Pharo-Core.
I might be wrong, and I known that Squeak has been changing lately, but Pharo seems to have been the driver here, putting these issues on the map. Sven
