June 2009 - Pharo-dev - lists.pharo.org

Re: [Pharo-project] Making GUI'S

by Schwab,Wilhelm K

Sig, Very true. Pharo's portability and licensing will help with that. Having at least some domain-level (I would include the recently mentioned networking as a good example) compatibility with major dialects would help attract users. I wish the IDE were faster. Bill -----Original Message----- From: pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Igor Stasenko Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 6:27 AM To: Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Making GUI'S My 2 cents: one of the ways to stay 'compatible' is become a de-facto standart because of high popularity :) 2009/6/21 StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr>: > > On Jun 21, 2009, at 12:27 PM, Norbert Hartl wrote: > >> On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 21:46 +0200, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: >>> + 100000000 :) >>> >>> I want to invent a reasonable future :) >>> >> Your (Marcus and yours) mails sound a bit strange to me. Please let >> us not do this separation between academia and industria again. I >> don't think there is any option but to try to have both: stability >> and improvements. There should be a core that is as common as possible. >> And >> no, having a common core is not _the_ reason for not be able to >> change anything. For me that were the reasons to fork off from squeak. > > Exact :) > >> This dialect thing in smalltalk is really ridiculous. You cannot use >> such basic things like networking even across two different dialects. >> So Â you have to stay inside your own world/box. That is IMHO highly >> in- >> appropriate for these times. But I know some reasons why it is like >> this and that's the reason I can live with it. But there is room for >> improvement we should not miss. > > totally true. > >> And I hope you can see that the support for basic technologies in >> smalltalk is way behind. > > unfortunately > >> The beauty and the >> strength of the language of smalltalk only lays within itself. >> >> Maybe I got you wrong but this mails triggered something in me so >> hence the more harsh tone :) > > No problem, we are discussing :) > Now we should not get trapped in the backward compatible compatibility > with X and Z. > > >> >> Norbert >> >> On Jun 20, 2009, at 5:22 PM, Marcus Denker wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 20.06.2009, at 10:52, Cameron Sanders wrote: >>>> >>>>> They could probably all learn from the other flavors. In fact, the >>>>> cross-smalltalk portability is a negative for smalltalk. >>>>> >>>>> I believe I tried smalltalk/X... that's the natively-compiled one, >>>>> right? So it feels like C++ if you change a root class -- or am I >>>>> confusing it with another? I'm on a new platform and can't check >>>>> what all I installed last year, at the moment. >>>>> >>>>> I like the idea of a compiled version!! And there would be a place >>>>> for it in my world, *if* I could take code from Pharo and load it >>>>> into say, Smalltalk/X, and have it work without a month-long >>>>> debugging session. >>>> >>>> One huge problem with compatibility is always that it reduces any >>>> possibility in evolving/improving the system. If the goal is to be >>>> compatible to e.g. >>>> all of Smalltalk X, Visualworks, Squeak, Gemstone.... than, in the >>>> end, this means we can not do anything anymore, and, most >>>> importantly: we can not do any *fun* things anymore. >>>> >>>> Beeing compatible means reducing what you do to the subset of all >>>> the dialects, and than stop doing anything. >>>> >>>> If I you should choose between a) "inventing the future" and b) "be >>>> compatible to VisualWorks", what would you take? >>>> >>>> And I personally have already choosen for the "inventing the future" >>>> route, I guess. It makes >>>> no sense to be in Research (and beeing payed those wonderful tiny >>>> salaries) and than do boring stuff. >>>> That makes no sense. >>>> >>>> I personally think that the possibility and duty of working on >>>> interesting things is part of the overall compensation package of >>>> people in Research. >>>> >>>> Â Â Marcus >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Marcus Denker - http://marcusdenker.de PLEIAD Lab - Computer >>>> Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pharo-project mailing list >>>> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pharo-project mailing list >>> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig. _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

June 21, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Making GUI'S

by Schwab,Wilhelm K

Norbert, There were many reasons to fork from Squeak, and the improvements in Pharo would not have been possible any other way. I share your frustration at the lack of compatibility between dialects. Necessity being the mother of invention (and in this case the motiviation for same), I have started chipping away at the problem between Dolphin and Pharo. So far, it is little more than a collection of facades and helper methods that should reduce the hassles of getting my Dolphin code to run on Pharo. When that is all that is required, I think we should strive to make such layers available. Being different merely for its own sake buys us little. Bill -----Original Message----- From: pharo-project-bounces(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr [mailto:pharo-project-bounces@lists.gforge.inria.fr] On Behalf Of Norbert Hartl Sent: Sunday, June 21, 2009 5:27 AM To: Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] Making GUI'S On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 21:46 +0200, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: > + 100000000 :) > > I want to invent a reasonable future :) > Your (Marcus and yours) mails sound a bit strange to me. Please let us not do this separation between academia and industria again. I don't think there is any option but to try to have both: stability and improvements. There should be a core that is as common as possible. And no, having a common core is not _the_ reason for not be able to change anything. For me that were the reasons to fork off from squeak. This dialect thing in smalltalk is really ridiculous. You cannot use such basic things like networking even across two different dialects. So you have to stay inside your own world/box. That is IMHO highly in- appropriate for these times. But I know some reasons why it is like this and that's the reason I can live with it. But there is room for improvement we should not miss. And I hope you can see that the support for basic technologies in smalltalk is way behind. The beauty and the strength of the language of smalltalk only lays within itself. Maybe I got you wrong but this mails triggered something in me so hence the more harsh tone :) Norbert On Jun 20, 2009, at 5:22 PM, Marcus Denker wrote: > > > > > On 20.06.2009, at 10:52, Cameron Sanders wrote: > > > >> They could probably all learn from the other flavors. In fact, the > >> cross-smalltalk portability is a negative for smalltalk. > >> > >> I believe I tried smalltalk/X... that's the natively-compiled one, > >> right? So it feels like C++ if you change a root class -- or am I > >> confusing it with another? I'm on a new platform and can't check > >> what all I installed last year, at the moment. > >> > >> I like the idea of a compiled version!! And there would be a place > >> for it in my world, *if* I could take code from Pharo and load it > >> into say, Smalltalk/X, and have it work without a month-long > >> debugging session. > > > > One huge problem with compatibility is always that it reduces any > > possibility in evolving/improving the system. If the goal is to be > > compatible to e.g. > > all of Smalltalk X, Visualworks, Squeak, Gemstone.... than, in the > > end, this means we can not do anything anymore, and, most > > importantly: we can not do any *fun* things anymore. > > > > Beeing compatible means reducing what you do to the subset of all > > the dialects, and than stop doing anything. > > > > If I you should choose between a) "inventing the future" and b) "be > > compatible to VisualWorks", what would you take? > > > > And I personally have already choosen for the "inventing the future" > > route, I guess. It makes > > no sense to be in Research (and beeing payed those wonderful tiny > > salaries) and than do boring stuff. > > That makes no sense. > > > > I personally think that the possibility and duty of working on > > interesting things is part of the overall compensation package of > > people in Research. > > > > Marcus > > > > -- > > Marcus Denker - http://marcusdenker.de PLEIAD Lab - Computer Science > > Department (DCC) - University of Chile > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pharo-project mailing list > > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

June 21, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Making GUI'S

by Janko MivÅ¡ek

dmason(a)mason-rose.ca pravi: > One of my interests is building highly scalable (web-based) software > applications. The advantage in using Smalltalk is that it has the nice > possibility of being able to get (1) the wonderfully powerful > development environment, (2) the incredible flexibility of the language > and (3) *very* high performance deployment. > > In my opinion, Pharo is taking the right direction in the first two > (getting proper closures finally into the Squak runtime is an example, > as is the progress in refactoring and browsing, license cleaning, > increased test coverage, etc.)... and adequate performance for many > situations. > > For the very high performance need, Strongtalk looks like a very > interesting platform to me, others may have their own preferences. All Squeak flavors bet on Eliot Miranda here and while knowing him for a long time, I'm confident that this is the right bet. This way we will get a really good and *maintainable* VM, which Strongtalk (being written in a lot of C code) is obviously not. The current goal is at least the speed of VisualWorks, that's 10 times faster than current Squeak VM. That's not that bad and from my experience more than enough for majority of our needs. Remember, performance problems in most systems lies in relational DB level, so let one optimize there first. By getting rid of RDB in that layer, if someone ask me... > For > this to work there are two significant impediments: sharing code, and > networking compatibility. Interestingly, Avi Bryant seems to have had > his hand in addressing both (Monticello and Seaside compatibility > modules). As Strongtalk seems to be a bit orphaned these days, I think > a fruitful route would be to make the interfaces compatible with > squeak/pharo, where possible. > > As for the overall question of compatibility, I think we should strive > to have the lowest level infrastructure as compatible as possible, but > lots of experimentation above that level. > > ../Dave -- Janko MivÅ¡ek AIDA/Web Smalltalk Web Application Server http://www.aidaweb.si

June 21, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Making GUI'S

by dmason＠mason-rose.ca

One of my interests is building highly scalable (web-based) software applications. The advantage in using Smalltalk is that it has the nice possibility of being able to get (1) the wonderfully powerful development environment, (2) the incredible flexibility of the language and (3) *very* high performance deployment. In my opinion, Pharo is taking the right direction in the first two (getting proper closures finally into the Squak runtime is an example, as is the progress in refactoring and browsing, license cleaning, increased test coverage, etc.)... and adequate performance for many situations. For the very high performance need, Strongtalk looks like a very interesting platform to me, others may have their own preferences. For this to work there are two significant impediments: sharing code, and networking compatibility. Interestingly, Avi Bryant seems to have had his hand in addressing both (Monticello and Seaside compatibility modules). As Strongtalk seems to be a bit orphaned these days, I think a fruitful route would be to make the interfaces compatible with squeak/pharo, where possible. As for the overall question of compatibility, I think we should strive to have the lowest level infrastructure as compatible as possible, but lots of experimentation above that level. ../Dave

June 21, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Making GUI'S

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

Don't worry :) Stef On Jun 21, 2009, at 4:38 PM, Marcus Denker wrote: > > On 21.06.2009, at 06:27, Norbert Hartl wrote: > >> On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 21:46 +0200, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: >>> + 100000000 :) >>> >>> I want to invent a reasonable future :) >>> >> Your (Marcus and yours) mails sound a bit strange to me. > > > I guess my mail was not about Pharo, but more about me... > > Marcus > > > -- > Marcus Denker - http://marcusdenker.de > PLEIAD Lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

June 21, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Making GUI'S

by Marcus Denker

On 21.06.2009, at 06:27, Norbert Hartl wrote: > On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 21:46 +0200, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: >> + 100000000 :) >> >> I want to invent a reasonable future :) >> > Your (Marcus and yours) mails sound a bit strange to me. I guess my mail was not about Pharo, but more about me... Marcus -- Marcus Denker - http://marcusdenker.de PLEIAD Lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile

June 21, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Making GUI'S

by Igor Stasenko

My 2 cents: one of the ways to stay 'compatible' is become a de-facto standart because of high popularity :) 2009/6/21 StÃ©phane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse(a)inria.fr>: > > On Jun 21, 2009, at 12:27 PM, Norbert Hartl wrote: > >> On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 21:46 +0200, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: >>> + 100000000 :) >>> >>> I want to invent a reasonable future :) >>> >> Your (Marcus and yours) mails sound a bit strange to me. Please let us >> not do this separation between academia and industria again. I don't >> think there is any option but to try to have both: stability and >> improvements. There should be a core that is as common as possible. >> And >> no, having a common core is not _the_ reason for not be able to change >> anything. For me that were the reasons to fork off from squeak. > > Exact :) > >> This dialect thing in smalltalk is really ridiculous. You cannot use >> such basic things like networking even across two different dialects. >> So Â you have to stay inside your own world/box. That is IMHO highly >> in- >> appropriate for these times. But I know some reasons why it is like >> this and that's the reason I can live with it. But there is room for >> improvement we should not miss. > > totally true. > >> And I hope you can see that the support >> for basic technologies in smalltalk is way behind. > > unfortunately > >> The beauty and the >> strength of the language of smalltalk only lays within itself. >> >> Maybe I got you wrong but this mails triggered something in me so >> hence >> the more harsh tone :) > > No problem, we are discussing :) > Now we should not get trapped in the backward compatible > compatibility with X and Z. > > >> >> Norbert >> >> On Jun 20, 2009, at 5:22 PM, Marcus Denker wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> On 20.06.2009, at 10:52, Cameron Sanders wrote: >>>> >>>>> They could probably all learn from the other flavors. In fact, the >>>>> cross-smalltalk portability is a negative for smalltalk. >>>>> >>>>> I believe I tried smalltalk/X... that's the natively-compiled one, >>>>> right? So it feels like C++ if you change a root class -- or am I >>>>> confusing it with another? I'm on a new platform and can't check >>>>> what >>>>> all I installed last year, at the moment. >>>>> >>>>> I like the idea of a compiled version!! And there would be a place >>>>> for >>>>> it in my world, *if* I could take code from Pharo and load it into >>>>> say, Smalltalk/X, and have it work without a month-long debugging >>>>> session. >>>> >>>> One huge problem with compatibility is always that it reduces any >>>> possibility >>>> in evolving/improving the system. If the goal is to be compatible to >>>> e.g. >>>> all of Smalltalk X, Visualworks, Squeak, Gemstone.... than, in the >>>> end, this means we can not >>>> do anything anymore, and, most importantly: we can not do any *fun* >>>> things anymore. >>>> >>>> Beeing compatible means reducing what you do to the subset of all >>>> the >>>> dialects, and than >>>> stop doing anything. >>>> >>>> If I you should choose between a) "inventing the future" and b) "be >>>> compatible to VisualWorks", >>>> what would you take? >>>> >>>> And I personally have already choosen for the "inventing the future" >>>> route, I guess. It makes >>>> no sense to be in Research (and beeing payed those wonderful tiny >>>> salaries) and than do boring stuff. >>>> That makes no sense. >>>> >>>> I personally think that the possibility and duty of working on >>>> interesting things is part of the >>>> overall compensation package of people in Research. >>>> >>>> Â Â Marcus >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Marcus Denker - http://marcusdenker.de >>>> PLEIAD Lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Pharo-project mailing list >>>> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >>>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pharo-project mailing list >>> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

June 21, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Making GUI'S

by StÃ©phane Ducasse

On Jun 21, 2009, at 12:27 PM, Norbert Hartl wrote: > On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 21:46 +0200, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: >> + 100000000 :) >> >> I want to invent a reasonable future :) >> > Your (Marcus and yours) mails sound a bit strange to me. Please let us > not do this separation between academia and industria again. I don't > think there is any option but to try to have both: stability and > improvements. There should be a core that is as common as possible. > And > no, having a common core is not _the_ reason for not be able to change > anything. For me that were the reasons to fork off from squeak. Exact :) > This dialect thing in smalltalk is really ridiculous. You cannot use > such basic things like networking even across two different dialects. > So you have to stay inside your own world/box. That is IMHO highly > in- > appropriate for these times. But I know some reasons why it is like > this and that's the reason I can live with it. But there is room for > improvement we should not miss. totally true. > And I hope you can see that the support > for basic technologies in smalltalk is way behind. unfortunately > The beauty and the > strength of the language of smalltalk only lays within itself. > > Maybe I got you wrong but this mails triggered something in me so > hence > the more harsh tone :) No problem, we are discussing :) Now we should not get trapped in the backward compatible compatibility with X and Z. > > Norbert > > On Jun 20, 2009, at 5:22 PM, Marcus Denker wrote: >> >>> >>> On 20.06.2009, at 10:52, Cameron Sanders wrote: >>> >>>> They could probably all learn from the other flavors. In fact, the >>>> cross-smalltalk portability is a negative for smalltalk. >>>> >>>> I believe I tried smalltalk/X... that's the natively-compiled one, >>>> right? So it feels like C++ if you change a root class -- or am I >>>> confusing it with another? I'm on a new platform and can't check >>>> what >>>> all I installed last year, at the moment. >>>> >>>> I like the idea of a compiled version!! And there would be a place >>>> for >>>> it in my world, *if* I could take code from Pharo and load it into >>>> say, Smalltalk/X, and have it work without a month-long debugging >>>> session. >>> >>> One huge problem with compatibility is always that it reduces any >>> possibility >>> in evolving/improving the system. If the goal is to be compatible to >>> e.g. >>> all of Smalltalk X, Visualworks, Squeak, Gemstone.... than, in the >>> end, this means we can not >>> do anything anymore, and, most importantly: we can not do any *fun* >>> things anymore. >>> >>> Beeing compatible means reducing what you do to the subset of all >>> the >>> dialects, and than >>> stop doing anything. >>> >>> If I you should choose between a) "inventing the future" and b) "be >>> compatible to VisualWorks", >>> what would you take? >>> >>> And I personally have already choosen for the "inventing the future" >>> route, I guess. It makes >>> no sense to be in Research (and beeing payed those wonderful tiny >>> salaries) and than do boring stuff. >>> That makes no sense. >>> >>> I personally think that the possibility and duty of working on >>> interesting things is part of the >>> overall compensation package of people in Research. >>> >>> Marcus >>> >>> -- >>> Marcus Denker - http://marcusdenker.de >>> PLEIAD Lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Pharo-project mailing list >>> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >>> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Pharo-project mailing list >> Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr >> http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

June 21, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Making GUI'S

by Norbert Hartl

On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 21:46 +0200, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: > + 100000000 :) > > I want to invent a reasonable future :) > Your (Marcus and yours) mails sound a bit strange to me. Please let us not do this separation between academia and industria again. I don't think there is any option but to try to have both: stability and improvements. There should be a core that is as common as possible. And no, having a common core is not _the_ reason for not be able to change anything. For me that were the reasons to fork off from squeak. This dialect thing in smalltalk is really ridiculous. You cannot use such basic things like networking even across two different dialects. So you have to stay inside your own world/box. That is IMHO highly in- appropriate for these times. But I know some reasons why it is like this and that's the reason I can live with it. But there is room for improvement we should not miss. And I hope you can see that the support for basic technologies in smalltalk is way behind. The beauty and the strength of the language of smalltalk only lays within itself. Maybe I got you wrong but this mails triggered something in me so hence the more harsh tone :) Norbert On Jun 20, 2009, at 5:22 PM, Marcus Denker wrote: > > > > > On 20.06.2009, at 10:52, Cameron Sanders wrote: > > > >> They could probably all learn from the other flavors. In fact, the > >> cross-smalltalk portability is a negative for smalltalk. > >> > >> I believe I tried smalltalk/X... that's the natively-compiled one, > >> right? So it feels like C++ if you change a root class -- or am I > >> confusing it with another? I'm on a new platform and can't check what > >> all I installed last year, at the moment. > >> > >> I like the idea of a compiled version!! And there would be a place > >> for > >> it in my world, *if* I could take code from Pharo and load it into > >> say, Smalltalk/X, and have it work without a month-long debugging > >> session. > > > > One huge problem with compatibility is always that it reduces any > > possibility > > in evolving/improving the system. If the goal is to be compatible to > > e.g. > > all of Smalltalk X, Visualworks, Squeak, Gemstone.... than, in the > > end, this means we can not > > do anything anymore, and, most importantly: we can not do any *fun* > > things anymore. > > > > Beeing compatible means reducing what you do to the subset of all the > > dialects, and than > > stop doing anything. > > > > If I you should choose between a) "inventing the future" and b) "be > > compatible to VisualWorks", > > what would you take? > > > > And I personally have already choosen for the "inventing the future" > > route, I guess. It makes > > no sense to be in Research (and beeing payed those wonderful tiny > > salaries) and than do boring stuff. > > That makes no sense. > > > > I personally think that the possibility and duty of working on > > interesting things is part of the > > overall compensation package of people in Research. > > > > Marcus > > > > -- > > Marcus Denker - http://marcusdenker.de > > PLEIAD Lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pharo-project mailing list > > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project > > > _______________________________________________ > Pharo-project mailing list > Pharo-project(a)lists.gforge.inria.fr > http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project

June 21, 2009

Re: [Pharo-project] Making GUI'S

by Cameron Sanders

I understand your point ... really! It has to be fun. ... I'm just saying, it would be nice if simple classes could port over with no effort. oh ... never mind... ciao, cam On Jun 20, 2009, at 3:46 PM, StÃ©phane Ducasse wrote: >> Beeing compatible means reducing what you do to the subset of all the >> dialects, and than >> stop doing anything.

June 21, 2009