> This is important for us to know that and this is a really nice stab > in our back and this will kill a lot of the effort we build over the years.
I don't understand why you think this is a stab into your back? I have repeated the same concerns over and over again. > Now how can we make progress if we do not change Pharo? Again, we already discussed this many times. I think Pharo is totally off the track: Pharo should concentrate on getting a stable core and enabling distributions on top, not on integrating as much new things as possible. > May be a dead pharo is better for you. A dead Pharo is not my goal. I need a minimal Pharo with an absolutely trusted and stable core; a system where I can load all my code; a system that does not force me to use things I don't want to use. > @Lukas: please, could you point out what are the expected problems? > For example, all PetitParser-Tests are green out of the box in the latest 1.4. Nice, maybe the others also just work? OB does not work though because Polymorph changed (and the debugger doesn't even open in the UI thread anymore either, so it is not possible to figure out the problem); and because it expects a different version of RB. > You were against changing RB, so how can we do remote tooling? I was against chaining RB, because the proposed changes undermined design decisions in RB. In general, it feels extremely strange to me if people change code (or even class comments) without understanding the code. Also, for that matter, I don't see how you want to use RB for remote tooling? If you remember, I pointed out an interview a while ago with John where they discuss why remote tooling wouldn't work without rewriting most parts. Lukas -- Lukas Renggli www.lukas-renggli.ch
