Come on, chris. Are you getting nervous, tired, bored? Because we are cool and positive thinking :). We are not reinventing the past, believe me - I never saw a objectecentric debugger, a bootstrapped kernel and a lot more….:)
May be you did not read my FAST Pharo presentation or the ESUG one but we want to get more business around Pharo and we are doing it. In addition we are creating a real company (and probably another in the future) and we are really aware about what is to really getting work done. You know Moose is probably one of the most complex Pharo application around. Now we do not want to live in a place where each time we open a browser on something we cry. Why because at the end it will kill us. If we cannot innovate and go fast with Smalltalk then better code in Java or Javascript. This is why we removed FileDirectory (note that camillo nicely proposed a compat package), systemEventNotifier…. Esteban could port Pier and Seaside to Pharo 1.4 in a couple of hours. We have pier running in 2.0. Now just out of curiosity do you use Pharo ;D Stef > If my goal is to make my computer work for ME, then I want my > development system to maximize my leverage and minimize my effort. > Breaking compatibility for cleaner code subverts this, as Hannes said, > >>> Constant input in maintenance effort is needed. > > I want to use my time applying Smalltalk to real-world problems, not > API changes. > > A blue-plane innovation is worth breaking backward compatibility, > reinventing the past isn't. > > >>> maintaining libraries and maybe compatibility layers are very welcome. >>> >> Yes, and how did we ever thought we could invent the future with Squeak >> when in reality, we could not even change a typo in a comment? >> >> Marcus >> >> >> >> >
