Torsten Bergmann wrote:
> Andreas wrote:
>> Pharo-core is not an option as a basis for Squeak since it is driven by 
>> a fundamentally incompatible set of ideas at this point.
> 
> Can you elaborate on this a little bit more.

I thought I just did ;-) To repeat my example in slightly different 
terms: Unless I'm mistaken Pharo probably doesn't support MVC and has no 
option to load it back in. Moreoever, I would expect that this is 
considered a Good Thing, since it doesn't align with the goal of being a 
commercially viable platform. And I think that's true for many other 
areas (Etoys for sure) currently under scrutiny.

As a consequence I would expect that with every week there are changes 
in Pharo which make it a better Pharo (i.e., commercial platform) but in 
return make it a worse Squeak (i.e., universal computing environment). 
Given the lack of modularity in the system today that seems unavoidable.

As we improve modularity on either end, we may be able to meet in the 
middle at some point. But that's still quite a while out and would also 
require more willingness to compromise from either side than is 
currently available.

> Maybe Pharo-core is not "core" enough to be the basis for Squeak 
> and other distributions like Cuis, EToys, ... 
> So what is the "basis"?

I think the real answer here is that we'll learn by competition. Don't 
forget that we only just got started. Reinventing the contribution 
process was a strict requirement before we can move on to higher level 
goals. We're at that stage now, looking at packages, looking at what we 
want the Squeak image to be, as well looking at how we can make things 
smaller.

> Since I use and enjoy both, Squeak and Pharo I think the main 
> question remaining is if we can find a common "core"/"kernel" for 
> all distributions/forks and how does it look like...

Like I was saying earlier, I think there's a higher probability that the 
"common stuff" will come from outside packages (such as Filesystem).

Cheers,
   - Andreas