About squeak image compatibility (3.6/7/8)

stéphane ducasse ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Sun Jan 8 19:20:31 UTC 2006

Hi tim

I agree but I also think that the analysis of Samir is good in the  
sense that it would be good to have
packages of extra collection clearly identified (Avi BTrees,  
KeySet....) I think that packages are the way to
go and we are getting there slowly....


On 8 janv. 06, at 20:06, tim Rowledge wrote:

> I don't think that one should expect the sort of backwards  
> compatibility that allows one to build software in a new version of  
> Squeak, making use of new and improved facilities, and then somehow  
> have it work in an older version. Sure, you could make a sub- 
> package of the new facilities used; but who do you expect to do  
> that work and why? What about the sub-sub-package to add the  
> support for that new class or two. And what about the next release  
> - a different set of add-ins for each previous release?
> Surely you wouldn't expect a package written to use Morphic to  
> simply filein to a pre-Morphic image and work?
> If we want Squeak to advance we have to sometimes accept that  
> previously written code will need reworking and reissuing. It's  
> hard enough to try to keep forward compatibility at a decent level.
> tim
> --
> tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
> when people are free to do as they please, they usually imitate  
> each other

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list