I think that pharo serves a need. The need for something solid and free from restrictions related to software.
Hi Edgar,
some weeks ago I played with an idea to have Pharo Kernel as the base
of Squeak. I compared the images to see how much work it would
constitute. I found out two things:
- it would not require too much work. It would be not simple but it is possible
- there is no reason to do that
I can imagine Squeak as an extension of Pharo but I do not see the
purpose and target users of the resultant system.
-- Pavel
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Edgar J. De Cleene
<edgardec2005@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/15/12 8:50 AM, "Marcus Denker" <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
>
>> I would not waste time with that... we will improve Pharo constantly, and it
>> will
>> be very hard (if not impossible) to keep some kind of compatibility layer on a
>> binary
>> code level between Pharo, Squeak and Cuis.
>>
>> And what do you get out of it? Wouldn't it be better to use the time to
>> improve one system
>> and make sure that system has a future?
>>
>> Marcus
>
> And if none of actual forks have all as I wish?
> All have some good and all have some problem for me.
> It's why try to learn from all here and all in Squeak and from Juan.
>
> Don't' sell me the fish, teach me to fishing.
>
> Edgar
>
>
>