On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 5:52 PM, David T. Lewis <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 01:50:06PM +0200, Marcus Denker wrote: > > > > On Apr 15, 2012, at 1:44 PM, Edgar J. De Cleene wrote: > > > > > > And wish made experiments if this Foo.fuel could be loaded into > different > > > fork as Squeak, Cuis having Fuel into. > > > > I would not waste time with that... we will improve Pharo constantly, > and it will > > be very hard (if not impossible) to keep some kind of compatibility > layer on a binary > > code level between Pharo, Squeak and Cuis. > > > > And what do you get out of it? Wouldn't it be better to use the time to > improve one system > > and make sure that system has a future? > > Fuel seems to be well written and organized. Even though I have only used > Fuel a little (for remote task execution with OSProcess), I was able to > easily understand the code when I loaded it in Squeak. > > There is no reason that a well-written package cannot be maintained for > several flavors of the image. That is a sign of competent developers doing > good work :) > > Thanks Dave for the nice words :) At the beginning (first releases of Fuel) most answers and feedback from the community was "yet another serializer?" "why you have started again from scratch?" Now, some time later, people is slowly understanding why we have started from scratch ;) Cheers -- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com
