On 24.08.2010, at 17:23, Pavel Krivanek wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Juan Vuletich <juan at jvuletich.org> wrote:
>> Andreas Raab wrote:
>>> 
>>> I'm sure it's possible given enough effort. But it won't matter. The issue
>>> isn't technical, the rift between Squeak and Pharo is something that is the
>>> result of both personal as well philosophical differences. Contrary to which
>>> Cuis is much closer to Squeak; not only is Juan a Squeak board member, but
>>> the idea of having a system that a single person can understand is dear to
>>> all of us, I think :-)
>>> 
>>> Cheers,
>>>  - Andreas
>> 
>> I fully agree, but I see a clear technical issue. Current Pharo has too much
>> 'optional stuff' to be considered the basic system. If the Pharo
>> modularization efforts lead to a much smaller kernel (perhaps the size of
>> Cuis or KernelImage), then that could be the basic system.
>> 
>> So it seems that Squeak and Pharo might be walking a similar path to system
>> modularization. So, personal and social issues aside, what would be nice is
>> some form of cooperation between those efforts.
>> 
> 
> I still think that Squeakers should entertaint the possibility to
> adopt PharoCore (or PharoKernel?) some way as the base. The reasons
> are clearly practical - and not only for Smalltalk programmers. Squeak
> hardly can keep pace with Pharo. Moreover Pharo starts to have several
> full-timers now. And original goals of Squeak are very different from
> duplicating of effort already done somewhere else. Squeak has to face
> to competition of Pharo and EToys. Squeakers can "fight" them or use
> them. Please do not let personal disagreements blind you...

+1

I don't see how we could get there any time soon, but sharing a common kernel across all Squeak forks is a valuable goal, just like we share the Virtual Machine. I can see no good reason to forever duplicate efforts in those lower parts of the system, even if right now we still have to, for practical reasons.

- Bert -