[Pharo-project] fuelized test failures

Marcus Denker marcus.denker at inria.fr
Sun Jul 22 05:11:13 EDT 2012


On Jul 22, 2012, at 10:00 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:

> I love that scenario :)
> This is great that powerful tools let us imagine and build solutions that would not be possible 
> before. Power to imagination…
> 
And it is an example for a building block that helps to build things. Things that are *impossible*
without it.

Another way to view Fuel is that of a scientific experiment: We empirically study the existing
(ImageSegment). Without pre-concived notions to replace it! (We actually thought ImageSegments
would turn out to be the greatest thing ever and just needed some documentation/more understandable
implementation).
-> You study the existing
-> You claim that you can do better
-> You do better.

And then the next step is *extremeley* importnat:

-> You prove that it is better for real by *replacing* ALL the existing subsystems that do the same.

That last part is very essential: in the end, you often see that it is actually not that easy.

So *replacing* is important. The other thing important is to realize that it enables things that are impossible
without.

There are people that claim that instead of Pharo, what we should have done is to just do our research on
top of an unchanged Squeak. (While not even trying to improve Squeak itself).

But I really wonder... just project Pharo some more years in the Future. Will that what we will be able to do
even be *thinkable* in the context of an unchanged Squeak 3.8?

	Marcus

--
Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de





More information about the Pharo-dev mailing list