About squeak image compatibility (3.6/7/8)
ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Sun Jan 8 19:20:31 UTC 2006
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 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