Tweak mainstream in Squeak
Damien Cassou
damien.cassou at laposte.net
Mon Jul 10 19:15:03 UTC 2006
Hi Andreas,
> Honestly, Stef, if it isn't random then what is the strategy for these
> changes? Looking at the past Squeak versions, starting from 3.6 every
> version was just incompatible enough with previous versions such that it
> would break any serious user of the metaclass hierarchy (like Tweak). I
> think you will agree that it can't continue that way, that at some point
> we need to get back to what can be called a *stable* metaclass kernel
> with reliable APIs and when exactly will that point be reached?
my vision of squeak is a live organism and I don't think a stable API
could fit such a system. I agree with you that one should be able to
rely on a common factor and work on top of this. On a certain point of
view this is already done with the most common classes/hierarchies and
their methods (you can count on #do: and #collect: for the collections,
and on #superclass for Behavior). But squeak is not in a position of
stabilization. Its community is to small. Currently, I think it is
better to push things and make things go ahead even if it breaks
compatibility.
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|