On 14 April 2018 at 01:52, Richard Sargent <richard.sargent@
gemtalksystems.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 13, 2018 at 1:11 PM, Hilaire <hila...@drgeo.eu> wrote:
>> Sometime Pharo frustrate me a lot, I felt it too in the message from
>> Benoit, in the other hand its community is very kind and always helpful. So
>> it is not about blaming people.
>> In my opinion, there are too much things pushed at the same time in
>> Pharo. You can't push too much things into the box, then when people
>> complain about it to be overfull and bugged request them to fix it, I don't
>> think it can work that way, at this scale of changes. In the other, this is
>> not really what happen here, I very likely exaggerate this trait but you
>> get the idea.
>> For example, I developed DrGeo for several years on P3. Why sticking to
>> P3? It gave me the opportunity to fine craft DrGeo to be stable and
>> predictable in the way it behaves to its end users, and a lot of releases
>> occurred. When I started to look at porting to newer image last June, I
>> realized  DrGeo will become unstable and oversized, so can of turning from
>> A+ grade to a D- grade, just by the magic of porting it. My plan was to
>> port it during the summer to get it ready end of August to deploy in local
>> schools, it does not happen. And I can write it: it is s-u-p-e-r
>> f-r-u-s-t-r-a-t-i-n-g. Is it normal when porting code? I don't know, I am a
>> casual developer, but it makes developing well crafted and reliable Pharo
>> application a bit expensive to my taste. To such a scale that I started to
>> evaluate alternative to Pharo as the underneath system, idea I finally gave
>> up after several weeks of evaluations. All in all I still have this felling
>> Pharo is not developer friendly, I fell DrGeo is not secure there. See when
>> porting to newer image, I end up using P7-32bits alpha on Linux because it
>> was the most comfortable situation comparing to P5/P6/P6.1, is it not
>> strange?
>> In the other hand this struggle occurs at image change. Ok, may be it is
>> a pattern specific to Smalltalk. Is it the case with commercial Smalltalk
>> vendors?
> Hi Hilaire,
> Thanks for articulating this. I've been mostly watching Pharo rather than
> using it, so I haven't been affected by the changes between versions. With
> respect to commercial products versus Pharo *at the present time*, I
> think we have different driving forces shaping things.
> In my opinion, VA Smalltalk has been the one most strongly driven by the
> importance of backward compatibility and ease of migration to a new
> version. VisualWorks has been pretty good about providing a path forward
> with minimal pain, although the more major version numbers difference, the
> harder it is to transition. Likewise, GemStone/S has a strong emphasis on
> keeping our customers' existing applications running with minimal changes.
> That being said, I have no doubt that the earliest versions of all these
> products had substantial incompatibilities between versions. I am also
> pretty sure there is a threshold beyond which the adoption of Pharo in
> business applications will compel Pharo development to facilitate migration
> to newer versions and to better maintain API compatibility. [And that may
> be simply because, as more businesses rely on Pharo, they will be
> financially supporting its development.]

You would expect this be a natural progression as more companies supporting
such priorities join the consortium.

The corollary is that its better the take greater leaps earlier when there
is a greater percentage of Innovators and Early Adopters
who are willing to ride some rough edges for the benefit they gain *now*.
When the Majority arrive, such changes would be more disruptive to
perception of Pharo i.e. more opinons, less care.

cheers -ben

> A second consideration is the size of the product teams (measured in
> full-time staffing). I think the commercial products had a much larger
> staffing in their early days than Pharo has even now. And I think the
> consequence of that is that the changes between v1 and v2 or between v2 and
> v3 of the commercial products *may* have been comparable to the
> differences between Pharo v(n) and v(n+3).
> Richard
>> Hilaire
>> --
>> Dr. Geo
>> http://drgeo.eu

Reply via email to