[Pharo-project] fuelized test failures

Stéphane Ducasse stephane.ducasse at inria.fr
Sun Jul 22 07:00:33 EDT 2012

nice explanation. Indeed I really liked IS but fuel is the way to go :)

On Jul 22, 2012, at 11:11 AM, Marcus Denker wrote:

> 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