On Wed, 22 Dec 2010, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
Levente
What do you want to prove? We pushed/supported squeak since 3.5 or even before. So what? We were harvesters of bug fixes long long long long time ago. We started to clean squeak years ago. Do you want me to come up with a similar timeline from our effort? I do not have that amount of time to lose. We wrote most of the books and tutorial on Squeak. We built the squeakfoundation too btw :) and we give you all that effort for free. People think that going pharo was an easy choice, this was not. May be you do not believe that this is a lot but it is.
Now please please nobody has to gain anything polluting the good energy we are creating. You are free to believe what you want. We are free to do the way we want it.
Levente we did pharo just to avoid arguing and get bad feelings. so keep this place nice friendly and welcoming.
Since others already wrote the answer to this part, I won't duplicate it here.
Stef
PS: I can send you private mail to show you some evidence of the fact that our efforts to improve Squeak got attacked by 'Important' squeaker.
I guess you already sent that to me in March this year. Levente
a) removing unessential code from Squeak (Squeak, having started as a children.s education project, has accumulated a fair amount of cruft over the years), b) clearer licensing (MIT license), c) more frequent updates (think Ubuntu versus Debian), and d) being a reference implementation for the Seaside platform (perfect, exactly what I need it for)."
b) and c) are clearly false. a) ignores the fact that you can unload quite a lot of "cruft" from Squeak making it comparable to Pharo-Core.
I might be wrong, and I known that Squeak has been changing lately, but Pharo seems to have been the driver here, putting these issues on the map.
The modularization of Squeak is an old idea (a). One such effort is Pavel's KernelImage project which dates back to 2006: http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/1873
The idea of relicensing Squeak (b) dates back to 2003 or earlier. Apple relicensed the original Squeak code in 2006 under the Apache license. AFAIK the MITification process started in 2006 or 2007: http://c2.com/cgi-bin/wiki?SqueakRelicensePush. According to wikipedia the driving force was adding EToys to OLPC.
I think that in case of the update frequency (c) Squeak was the driving force. Why? Let's see the timeline:
21 March 2008: Squeak 3.10 released 21 May 2008: Pharo forked Squeak 3.9 (the date may not be exact) 30 May 2008: First Pharo snapshot uploaded to gforge 02 July 2009: Squeak's new developement process announced (aka 3.11 developement cancelled) 31 July 2009: Pharo 1.0 Beta announced 16 March 2010: Squeak 4.0 comes out (same as Squeak 3.10, but with MIT license) 29 March 2010: Squeak 4.1 feature freeze announced 16 April 2010: Pharo 1.0 released 26 April 2010: Squeak 4.1 released (the first artifact of the new process) 16 May 2010: Pharo 1.1 Beta announced 26 July 2010: Pharo 1.1 released 08 December 2010: Pharo 1.2 Beta announced 13 December 2010: Squeak 4.2 feature freeze announced
Pharo's developement cycle restarts after a beta. Squeak's developement cycle restarts after the release. So:
Artifact DW RW WSPR ------------------------------------ Pharo 1.0 62 99 N/A Pharo 1.1 41 47 14 Pharo 1.2 29 >31 >21 Squeak 4.1 38 42 5 but irrelevant Squeak 4.2 33 >34 >34
DW = Developement weeks (number of weeks between cycle restart and feature freeze/beta) RW = Release weeks (number of weeks between cycle restart and release) WSPR = Weeks since previous release (number of weeks between releases)
What I wanted to show is that the release of Pharo 1.0 was not urgent at all (DW and RW are both _more than a year_) until Squeak 4.1 came out. After the release of Squeak 4.1, Pharo 1.0 and 1.1 was released ASAP.
So yes, I think you're wrong, just like Dmitri.
Levente
Sven