On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:46 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck <marianopeck@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 9:40 AM, Pavel Krivanek <pavel.krivanek@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 4:43 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua@gmail.com> wrote:
it was a time, when were able to track all activities around squeak, pharo and vm..
today the amount of updates, news and activities is just overwhelming..
a rusty locomotive, which once staying in backyard, repaired by Stef and Marcus and now goes faster and faster :)
I think we have to improve the foreknowledge about what will happen, why it will happen, what it will mean, what are the related issues etc. I in most cases I have no clue about changes in package structure of the image that are being performed and that require changes in Pharo Kernel processing, initialization etc. As an example I can mention recent CodeImporter integration.
I like the improvements rate but as the side effect it makes Pharo less attractive platform for serious development.
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 Germán. 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 Germán choose Cuis for his current projects. Developers want simple predictable system. I do not think that the way out from this is to slow down. On the contrary. We simply have to do this era of a lot of big changes as short as possible ;-) -- Pavel
-- Pavel
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
-- Mariano http://marianopeck.wordpress.com