nice explanation. Indeed I really liked IS but fuel is the way to go :) On Jul 22, 2012, at 11:11 AM, Marcus Denker wrote:
> > On Jul 22, 2012, at 10:00 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote: > >> I love that scenario :) >> This is great that powerful tools let us imagine and build solutions that >> would not be possible >> before. Power to imagination… >> > And it is an example for a building block that helps to build things. Things > that are *impossible* > without it. > > Another way to view Fuel is that of a scientific experiment: We empirically > study the existing > (ImageSegment). Without pre-concived notions to replace it! (We actually > thought ImageSegments > would turn out to be the greatest thing ever and just needed some > documentation/more understandable > implementation). > -> You study the existing > -> You claim that you can do better > -> You do better. > > And then the next step is *extremeley* importnat: > > -> You prove that it is better for real by *replacing* ALL the existing > subsystems that do the same. > > That last part is very essential: in the end, you often see that it is > actually not that easy. > > So *replacing* is important. The other thing important is to realize that it > enables things that are impossible > without. > > There are people that claim that instead of Pharo, what we should have done > is to just do our research on > top of an unchanged Squeak. (While not even trying to improve Squeak itself). > > But I really wonder... just project Pharo some more years in the Future. Will > that what we will be able to do > even be *thinkable* in the context of an unchanged Squeak 3.8? > > Marcus > > -- > Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de > >
