About Flow in Squeak 3.X
Jimmie Houchin
jhouchin at texoma.net
Tue Dec 2 21:47:26 UTC 2003
Craig Latta wrote:
> Hi Stef--
>
>
>>Thanks craig for this email. My gut feeling impression is that 4.0 is
>>far in the future for me.
>
>
> Does that mean that if there were a minimal-snapshot-plus modules
> system available right now, it would still be a while before you could
> use it? Just curious.
I would like one of these the-sooner-the-better.
Especially if you could take one and just add Comanche, SmallWiki,
Seaside, etc. and off and running you are with your website.
The full-image Squeak already exists and the minimal-snapshot-plus
system becoming available should not impede its growth.
>>So may be if someone is willing to do that it would be a good idea to
>>have Flow sooner.
>
> I actually think it'd be better to obviate any reasons to stay with the
> accreted snapshot. :) Making major changes in the old snapshot will
> just slow that down.
People requiring what the "old snapshot" or current Squeak does can
still use the current Squeak. Nothing impairs/impedes current capabilities.
To me this adds to the Squeak/Smalltalk world not subtracts from it.
Ok, ok bad phrasing or maybe not.
You decide. :)
It seems this would be of interest to the embedded Squeak guys.
Dan, Jon, Michael, ...?
>>I understand that you want to focus on something else, still I'm a
>>bit afraid that this will not happen (but may be this is my dark
>>face that is talking).
>
> Well, it's already happening from a technical perspective. :) I guess
> there's some question as to whether it'll be Squeak or something else,
> sure. That's part of the planning I'd like to do now.
I think many are interested.
Which is easier/better?
Comanche/Seaside/etc built-on/converted-to Flow or
... as they are and install Squeak's stream/network classes into
minimal-snapshot-plus-modules-image?
Yes, naive question from someone unknowledgeable about it all.
Thanks.
Jimmie Houchin
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|