csrabak wrote: > >> Focusing in the squeak/pharo/cuis branch, I've noticed that pharo >> people got really concerned in >> aspects that can attract market interest. They're looking for >> funding, fighting to have "hired >> people" (meaning under wages) minding "hairy aspects" of development, >> maintenance, documentation >> and some sort of "standardization", etc. Collaborators also produced >> interesting "printed material" (books, >> tutorials) but IMO such material is still very academic in nature. People >> in industry likes best "manual" >> stuff (like "foundation classes" with "methods" (messages in the >> case) documented, etc). IMO (again) >> here lies a relevant problem: there are "no foundation classes" (no >> "landmarks" or things that cannot be > easily changed) and it becomes >> apparent when people exchange ideas about "keeping this" and "getting >> rid of that". At least debate is going on and many issues have been >> addressed. > > Yes. >
I don't understand what was said here? Can someone elaborate? -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Cobol-is-the-new-language-to-know-tp3317188p3318737.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
