On 12 December 2012 22:45, Chris Muller <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Stef, I think Pharo is really neat. I have nothing against it > except for the "we are cool, you are not" attitude which I perceive at > times. hehe.. it is natural for people to contrast on something what everyone else knows. and taking in mind the bias ..
> I have no interest in chopping on the great work being done by > you and my other friends in Pharo, but that doesn't mean it is > feasible for me to use it in my business. While someone in the Pharo > community said FileSystem over FileDirectory is "huge", I see it as an > incremental API change, and close to being a matter of preference. > incremental? do you think you can implement a memory-based and/or git-based filesystem or 'remotely connected database-based file system' by just doing incremental changes to FileDirectory? good luck with such 'increments' :) >> Now just out of curiosity do you use Pharo ;D > > I do not use Pharo anymore. I tried for a while but the IDE was > difficult for me to work in and there was no reward for constant > patching of my packages just to stay working. I saw how decisions > which can have significant repercussions on low-level parts of the > code-base are made with such little debate. I have business to run > myself, this approach is untenable for me. Squeak's philosophy fits > me just right. > Yes, i agree that people should discuss low-level 'repercussions' and their impact before introducing them, or at least advocate the changes properly with all details and 'why-s'. (personally, i doing that way it all the time) > I will be watching Pharo with great interest. If it settles down > someday, and I need to start up a brand new Smalltalk project which > has no need for Magma or Maui, I will give Pharo another look. > > This thread is about the old debate about backward-compatibility, my > position should not be surprising. > > On Wed, Dec 12, 2012 at 12:22 PM, Stéphane Ducasse > <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
