On Jun 9, 2014, at 8:28 AM, Marcus Denker <marcus.den...@inria.fr> wrote:
> In general, I do not think that we should make Pharo more static. To the > extreme opposite, we should explore what a dynamic > (reflective, late bound) system can do that a static one can not do… and this > means actually using the dynamic features > (in a controlled way) even in deployment. +1 on that. The dynamism of Smalltalk always and forever is a powerful too that we should not have to do without. > Of course this might mean that we can not be everything for everyone. But do > we really want that? E.g. Is it the goal to be > a perfect development system for today’s resource constrained mircro > controllers? Or should we not better explore what the > new embedded world that already starts to show will get from a more dynamic > point of view? In the super constrained micro controllers development is typically some C-like thingy (hacked together), we should not try to change those customs and that culture, that’s not realistic. The new embedded world is indeed the place to go. For example, the raspberry pi running Pharo, that kind of hardware is becoming really wide-spread now. Other example is the Parrot AR Drone quadcopter, that’s a FLYING embedded system that has a 32 bit ARM Cortex A8 processor @ 800MHz, 1GB DDR2 RAM, WIFI and runs Linux 2.6.x. … while it is flying … Now that’s cool! :-) > The real challenge of embedded is the embedded nature, we now see a class of > embedded systems that have *real* resources > and that are actually always network connected. > Here we can (we must!) take a complete different point of view to the > standard “as static as possible, we have no resources” view that > people focus on now. Even the parrot drone is always network connected … its remote control is over wifi :-) ---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <--- Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile
