Amazing, it really appears to be that it hurts you everything about Pharo. Even as a mere mention of Pharo in some blog it can trigger a retaliation from you. I can't imagine how many spare hours you have to dedicate to build this impressive list of facts but I think that even the data is (I believe) correct, the aim isn't clear to me. Why? Why is this converting in some kind of "mine is bigger than yours"? It is because the changes you make for Squeak are meant for Squeak use only? That is something that you can't avoid, because the license is MIT. It is because even with that impressive amount of patches that Squeak receives, Squeak remains the same niche as it was 3 or 5 years before. As you can maybe sense, is needed more than technical skills to build a project. So, maybe you are right and Squeak has better bits inside it but for the +10 year it has living, Pharo has come to match and, my *personal opinion* left behind Squeak in only 2 years. That evidence that not only good, best-performance, mathematically perfect solutions are needed, but also a motivated community. But again, I don't know what is the precise reason of your disdain for Pharo. Because most Pharo people were Squeak people. We aren't coming to steal your house and kill your children, we just want other kind of Smalltalk. Is that a sin in the Squeak church? If it is, then glad Pharo forked it. But, as minimal our steps are, they are honest and with a vision. Don't take it personal. As Stéphane said in other mail, we would be more than happy to have your skills dedicated to Pharo, but your comments minimizing the Pharo team's work although allowed are not welcome.
May the cordiality be king here and more happy collaborations begin. Cheers El mié, 22-12-2010 a las 18:49 +0100, Levente Uzonyi escribió: > On Tue, 21 Dec 2010, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote: > > > > > 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. > > The modularization of Squeak is an old idea (a). One such effort is > Pavel's KernelImage project which dates back to 2006: > http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/1873 > > The idea of relicensing Squeak (b) dates back to 2003 or earlier. Apple > relicensed the original Squeak code in 2006 under the Apache license. > AFAIK the MITification process started in 2006 or 2007: > http://c2.com/cgi-bin/wiki?SqueakRelicensePush. According to wikipedia the > driving force was adding EToys to OLPC. > > I think that in case of the update frequency (c) Squeak was the driving > force. Why? Let's see the timeline: > > 21 March 2008: Squeak 3.10 released > 21 May 2008: Pharo forked Squeak 3.9 (the date may not be exact) > 30 May 2008: First Pharo snapshot uploaded to gforge > 02 July 2009: Squeak's new developement process announced (aka 3.11 > developement cancelled) > 31 July 2009: Pharo 1.0 Beta announced > 16 March 2010: Squeak 4.0 comes out (same as Squeak 3.10, but with MIT > license) > 29 March 2010: Squeak 4.1 feature freeze announced > 16 April 2010: Pharo 1.0 released > 26 April 2010: Squeak 4.1 released (the first artifact of the new process) > 16 May 2010: Pharo 1.1 Beta announced > 26 July 2010: Pharo 1.1 released > 08 December 2010: Pharo 1.2 Beta announced > 13 December 2010: Squeak 4.2 feature freeze announced > > Pharo's developement cycle restarts after a beta. Squeak's developement > cycle restarts after the release. So: > > Artifact DW RW WSPR > ------------------------------------ > Pharo 1.0 62 99 N/A > Pharo 1.1 41 47 14 > Pharo 1.2 29 >31 >21 > Squeak 4.1 38 42 5 but irrelevant > Squeak 4.2 33 >34 >34 > > DW = Developement weeks (number of weeks between cycle restart and feature > freeze/beta) > RW = Release weeks (number of weeks between cycle restart and release) > WSPR = Weeks since previous release (number of weeks between releases) > > What I wanted to show is that the release of Pharo 1.0 was not urgent at > all (DW and RW are both _more than a year_) until Squeak 4.1 came out. > After the release of Squeak 4.1, Pharo 1.0 and 1.1 was released ASAP. > > So yes, I think you're wrong, just like Dmitri. > > > Levente > > > > > Sven > > > > > > > -- Miguel Cobá http://twitter.com/MiguelCobaMtz http://miguel.leugim.com.mx
