On Feb 29, 2012, at 1:35 PM, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:
>
> On 29 Feb 2012, at 12:58, Janko Mivšek wrote:
>
>> For Pharo there seems everyone is avoiding this idea, mostly because of
>> image corruption fear. Well, we need to improve the robustness of Pharo
>> image and VM then this fear will vanish. It is obviously doable, if VW
>> is reliable enough, why not once Pharo?
>
> I am trying to be polite: remarks like this are unfair and not based on the
> experiences of most of the people in the Pharo community or of the companies
> using Pharo. It is perfectly possible to have stable long running servers
> based on Pharo. Sneaking in these phrases in simply spreading FUD.
It's not fair to expect, for nothing, the same as you get from a very expensive
product. Especially if even just
entering a bug report is seemingly already too much to ask (!), while for
VisualWorks, you have to pay real money.
"It is obviously doable" has a differnt meaning with some Millions of EUR per
year that one can spend for engineering
than without. Without, it's *far* from obvious!
Marcus
--
Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
