1) readily available, no 2) I was not necessarily thinking about the UI. For instance, a lot of stuff still references Preferences and break on load. 3) Yeah, I do have a few DOS application that I do care about because, so far, after all those years, they're the best at doing what they were designed for an no Java (or anything else) apps have replaced them in terms of performance and features. They're mostly tools but they work great and I haven't found any decent replacement for them. Beside, this is a weak argument Stephane! Do you still need that crappy 50 years old language called COBOL ? I guess so, in some cases!
----------------- Benoit St-Jean Yahoo! Messenger: bstjean A standpoint is an intellectual horizon of radius zero. (Albert Einstein) >________________________________ > From: Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> >To: [email protected]; Benoit St-Jean <[email protected]> >Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 11:07:13 AM >Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Packages and Pharo and Portability : the 3 Ps ! > >Benoit > >Let us start with some concrete questions > - Do you have a concrete list of package not working? > - Then do you prefer to have a vectorial UI with zomable facilities, clean >code or just and old fuzzy bitmap. > Same question: do you prefer Zinc and a nice HTTP layer or and old pre >internet library? > - Do you expect DOS applications to work nowadays? Do you care? > >Stef > > >On Dec 29, 2011, at 3:44 PM, Benoit St-Jean wrote: > >> I was wondering what is planned regarding packages available on SqueakSource >> and Pharo. More and more packages can't load in Pharo and it gets more and >> more frustrating not being able to load anything without having to >> add/modify methods/classes all over the place so those packages can load >> properly in Pharo. Are we looking at a Pharo-only kind of SqueakSource in >> the future ? > >Probably. >With quality-rules run automatically, style checking rules and some more. >And with tests of course and automatically. > >We should have a Pharo distribution. I will come. > >> Besides, having to handle platform specific (i.e. Pharo vs Squeak) for every >> package is adding more complexity than what is needed. I know backward >> compatibility was thrown away from the start to avoid compromises in Pharo >> but how do we take care of the fact that as each day passes, less and less >> stuff from SqueakSource is usable in Pharo ? >> >> tia >> >> ----------------- >> Benoit St-Jean >> Yahoo! Messenger: bstjean >> A standpoint is an intellectual horizon of radius zero. >> (Albert Einstein) > > > >
