I know, Pavel.
If you want to see Squeak shrink faster, and finally catch up with your sterling work from ages ago, please take the image in http://build.squeak.org/job/SqueakTrunk/573/artifact/*zip*/archive.zip and see if I haven't broken anything. In particular, poke around the Parser, because Nicolas and I saw some problems in the update stream a while ago concerning Parser.
Because one of the most serious non-technical problems that Squeak has is lack of people.
frank
On 29 October 2013 08:42, Pavel Krivanek squeak1@continentalbrno.cz wrote:
Hi Nicolas,
for Squeak we were able to shrink the system to a small kernel and reload and initialize the Morphic back long ago. In 2006. Two years before Pharo started to exist. The reason why Pharo can do it now and Squeak not is not technical.
Cheers, -- Pavel
2013/10/25 Nicolas Cellier nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com:
The problems you are going to face are:
- you need a good package delimitation, with clear contracts (on which
package/API do I depend?) both in the Squeak image (to save the package that you want to see reloaded) and in Pharo 2) the package delimitation has to be in good agreement, because the MC tools do not deal with package refactoring 3) since API are not in agreement, you gonna need plenty of glue for working around changes like trimBoth, includesSubstring: etc...
What are your goals exactly?
A) you want to build on top of smaller kernel? Then once you have 1), why should you go into Pharo rather than building on top of your Squeak kernel?
B) you want to profit by clean-ups and refactorings and shiny new architecture made in Pharo? Then yes, porting some interesting Squeak bits to Pharo has some value. But that means you spend a lot of efforts for maintaining those bits alive. That means switching from old file system to new one, switching from old text system to (yet future) new one, switching to Spec, switching to Settings, Announcements etc...
C) You have no specific goals, just want to follow the momentum, but keep your confortable Squeak slippers? If you end up with hacks for loading all the old Squeak mud, then you'll end up with Squeak, just a different Squeak, and unless you enjoy jumping many hurdles, I don't see the point.
2013/10/25 Edgar De Cleene edgardec2005@gmail.com
De: Nicolas Cellier nicolas.cellier.aka.nice@gmail.com Responder a: The general-purpose Squeak developers list squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Fecha: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 14:06:43 +0200 Para: The general-purpose Squeak developers list squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Asunto: Re: [squeak-dev] SqueakTrunk image on build.squeak.org broken?
Yes, Pharo is doing a great work of simplification. On the other hand, it deliberately has zero requirements to make removed parts reloadable, so the task is a bit easier...
Still exploring and understanding his system, but reporting ReferenceStream to Pharo 2.0 and having DependencyBrowser of Squeak working on it, a long time work could be put our view of Morphic on top of his kernel.
Or Cuis Morph hierarchy.
Edgar