Em 21-12-2010 16:31, Sven Van Caekenberghe escreveu: > 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. Following blogs, forums & e-mail lists you'll find these issues have been discussed since 2008 (at least). Split had little to do with technical issues (unfortunately). I agree with (b) & (c) false, (a) half-true & (d) true.
I guess that both communities must learn from successes & errors from each other. Currently neither squeak nor pharo have enough technical differences to claim significant superiority over the other. One thing I like in squeak is that's possible to update it without having to backup & reinstall. On the other hand, pharo has a nicer way of installing stuff. > Sven > > > CdAB
