On Tue, 21 Dec 2010, Miguel Cobá wrote:
El mar, 21-12-2010 a las 18:51 +0100, Levente Uzonyi escribió:
On Tue, 21 Dec 2010, Sven Van Caekenberghe wrote:
On 21 Dec 2010, at 00:14, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
Really? The third question has 3 wrong answers...
OK, I'll take the bait: I was looking for a high-quality, professional, well-maintained open-source Smalltalk supported by an active community with the right ideas, attitudes and ideals going forward, and I am happy I found it. And it seems I am not the only one.
I guess you're missing my point, which is: the post has false statements.
Maybe you can show us the false statements and not let us guess what are you refering to
IMHO there's no need to guess and it's better to discuss it in the blog itself, but here you go: "Although I.ve worked with .plain Squeak. for a number of years, the Pharo fork was a fairly easy choice since it focuses on 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. So I consider it false. d) is clearly true, but not a strong argument, because Seaside is cross-platform. Levente
And a decision is based on these false statements.
Levente
Sven
-- Miguel Cobá http://twitter.com/MiguelCobaMtz http://miguel.leugim.com.mx