On Mon, 21 Feb 2005 19:20:41 -0000, Peter Crowther <Peter at ozzard.org>  
wrote:

> I know I'm not Tim, but I'm also involved in VM hacking over here in the
> corner.  I think the proposed roadmap misses out on a big opportunity.
>
Fine. That's why we posted it, so you could make that clear.

> I've been waiting for over five years for Squeak to get the new object
> format, so that it is possible to do what I want to do (which involves
> significant VM changes) much more easily.
That's why I think it'd be good to have an inventory of 'accepted' and 'to  
discuss' items in the area of VM/object format changes. As far as I'm  
concerned, we just pop all of them into 4.0. But then I've been known to  
be a Friend of Change ;). We need to strike a balance here, not?

The risk is probably that another round of breakage could be introduced in  
5.0. Is that bad? Personally, I don't think so. But I think I've heard  
sounds to the contrary, that's why I proposed a more careful/gentle  
schedule.

> As you've probably gathered, I don't think much of the roadmap.
> Equally, I am *not* a typical Squeak user.
Personally, I don't think there is an accepted definition of 'a typical  
Squeak user' ;)