On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 8:39 PM, Tim Mackinnon <tim@testit.works> wrote:

So does that mean we should use the Pharo5 vm for production then? It sounds like 6 is still a bit bleeding edge

There is probably no stability��advantage in Pharo-5-32bit over Pharo-6-32bit, and "6" will be supported longer. ��

There was no released Pharo-5-64bit for comparison��IIUC Pharo-6-64bit is "stable" but I guess as its adopted into more varied use and environments, some issues may arise.�� So use 6-64bit if you need its image size capability, otherwise use 6-32bit (but still develop using 6-64bit to find those outlying bugs more quickly and cover 6-32bit with CI testing)��

cheers -ben ��

��

and for production applications we should wait for 6.1?

What you want is for any bugs you find to be integrated into 6.1, so you need to use 6.0 to find them ;)

��

cheers -ben

At the moment it seems a little chaotic - we all like the new features, and 6 is definitely a breath of fresh air - however if you want to deploy something commercially then you need stability.

Tim

> On 3 Jul 2017, at 19:28, Esteban Lorenzano <estebanlm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> On 3 Jul 2017, at 20:08, Bernhard Pieber <bernhard@pieber.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> What VM would you recommend for a production app on macOS Sierra?
>> - Pharo 6, right?
> yes
>
>> - I assume 32-bit because 64-bit is still experimental, right?
> not particularly, you can download it and use it.
> some tests fails but people is already using it (iceberg will not work, but AFAIK, is the only thing that does not works).
>
>> - The one I get with ��curl get.pharo.org | bash�� has a reproducible crash when typing (https://github.com/OpenSmalltalk/opensmalltalk-vm/issues/141). So it can��t be the recommended one, right?
> nevertheless is the current recommended one, and that bug is annoying us all :)
>
> but we hope to be able to fix it eventually, of course :)
>
> cheers!
> Esteban
>
>>
>> I must admit I am quite confused.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Bernhard
>
>