On Tuesday, February 11, 2003, at 10:40  PM, John M McIntosh wrote:

> With all these macintosh VM's floating about, I need some input on 
> where the macintosh
> file naming standards should go. The current carbon macintosh VM 
> assumes HFS+ naming standards,
> not that one should give fully qualified names in Squeak, but still 
> people are lazy.
>
> The two Cocoa/unix versions which will somehow merge with the carbon 
> tree, somehow, use the unix
> naming conventions.
>
> So I'm wondering if we mac os-x users migrate to unix naming 
> conventions will this cause problems?

I'm all for it. I use the shell a fair bit, so typing Unix-style paths 
is second nature to me. OTOH I *never* type HFS+ paths, so I find it 
really awkward and always forget the syntax. Consistency would be 
another plus. If I move between VMs with a single image, my paths 
become invalid and have to be manually fixed. If there are any 
advantages to using HFS+ paths on OS X, I can't see them.

> I'm also curious about how people feel Ian's VM reacts on their os-x 
> boxes. The smalltalk side of the VM should have the same performance 
> as the carbon version, so things like responsiveness, click feedback, 
> graphics performance etc are important to understand.

As far as I can tell performance is the same. In fact, all three VMs 
perform about the same for me, now that Marcel has fixed whatever bug 
was slowing down graphics in the Cocoa VM.

> Oh and when you minimize into the dock you should have all noted the 
> iconic representation eh?

Yup.

Cheers,

Colin