On May 16, 2012, at 9:23 AM, Pavel Krivanek wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 11:29 PM, St�phane Ducasse
> <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
>>>> It depends. Pharo 2.0 is UNSTABLE. It says it everywhere. If you want to do
>>>> seriuous development you won't beusing Pharo 2.0, will you? ;)
>>>
>>> I talked about that few days ago with Germ�n. The problem is not in
>>> using of unstable version. The problem is that it is very easy to stop
>>> to be in touch with Pharo now and within one year when the current
>>> unstable version will become stable the developers will face to very
>>> different system. That is one of the reason why Germ�n choose Cuis for
>>> his current projects. Developers want simple predictable system.
>>
>> Absolutely wonderful. So what people wants just the same. Ok but this is not Pharo.
>> And and and again again again and again who is concerned by RPackage vs PackageInfo,
>> systemNotifier vs. announcement, better monticello, better canvas, better Zinc�.
>> I find that a totally false argument.
>
> I will quote Germ�n (I hope he will not mind): "lot and lot ofPart of that is that I started the project "tweet something about Pharo every day".
> things... Lot of new things each day.
some 15 months? ago... my idea was that we need to make public what
happens because most people's perception was : Smalltak is dead.
If people want I can stop.
Pharo 1.4 is frozen. We just fix bugs. The same with 1.3. Or even 1.2...
> Not time to stabilize nothing.
You should *not* migrate. That's the idea. Just as one uses a (in the future
> Is needed such acceleration? ... My point is, I'm trying to move a
> business with Smalltalk and the acceleration of Pharo is well know by
> me (from other companies) and sooner or later, impact in my job and
> I'm a very LITTLE software house can't migrate my products all the
> time."
>
unchanging Cuis, I am sorry to hear that), you can use an unchaning Pharo 1.4,
or 1.3.
Only when your project needs it, (because you actively with manpower develop it
for a longer time), you can move to a new version.
What I think is problematic: Peopler are against Change. But when somone
> We simply have to accept that some developers can have this feelings
> and try to find a way how to limit it. I think that some official
> Pharo blog (maybe written by Esteban) would be very helpful. Some kind
> of not very extensive technical information source that will help
> people to stay in touch with Pharo progress. That will explain what is
> being changed in Pharo and why. I think that developers than will see
> the changes like positive not as alien ones.
>
nevertheless does it, build a great system, the same people that did not allow
us to move will gladly abandon the old system for the new system.
Cuis is a good example. According to the Philosophy of German, it should not exist.
Maybe we should partition the *mailinglist* by stable and unstable?
This way people using the stable don't see the noise and can focus...