On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote: > > On May 2, 2011, at 8:53 PM, Ted F.A. van Gaalen wrote: > >> Hi Marcus >> Ok, that makes it certain that I really have >> to move my packages to newer images >> if I want to sustain through the years, >> doesn't it? > > Or it would mean to change the meaning (or on some level: the implementation) > of the concept of the Image... you could have something that is more a > declarative > specification of a frozen object graph. >But without the low-level details, and then > reconstruct the object graph of the image at startup. Arrghh! I have to look this up, this goes beyond my current knowledge (possibly also my intelligence..)
Could we learn from DNA structure? > > But, the VM that would allow that would *not* be able to run existing images > of today. > > So I am actually not against what you want... I think that in 2019 we will > actually > have a system that can do exactly what you want. You are an optimist, Markus :o) besides I don't yet know what I want in =>2019 :o) > > But the nirvana nirvana inspect. > of a system that supports sofware evolution in a deep way can not > be achieved with being compatible with what we have now. > > We need to change (and destructively improve) our system if we want to go > there. I will certainly not associate the above line of yours with the French Revolution, oh I just did :o) Leave out the guillotine part, thanks. It's a Model though: If France c'est ok today, then Pharo will be also. :o) Regards Ted
