On Wed, 25 Aug 2010, Pavel Krivanek wrote:

> 2010/8/25 Levente Uzonyi <leves at elte.hu>:

snip

>>
>> Sorry, but I totally don't get what you're talking about. IMHO Pharo's
>> Kernel/Collections/Network/Compiler is (far) behind Squeak's. I think Pharo
>> lacks developers who have enough knowledge to touch those parts of the
>> system and are willing to spend their time on it. But I may be wrong, so
>> please let me know how is PharoKernel/Core better than Squeak.
>
> Pharoers are preparing Opal and Ocean so at least it is not right that
> they don't have enough courage and skills to touch this parts. As

Those are "external" packages. Maybe they will replace the Compiler and 
Network packages in Pharo someday. But if they can be changed in Pharo, 
it's very likely that they can be changed in Squeak if needed. I think 
Ocean won't be succesful for networking with Alien and Opal will hardly 
have the same performance as the current compiler, though both packages 
have several other advantages.
Anyway, these aren't examples for "Pharo developers enhancing the existing 
packages" which is what I was talking about.

> someone who tried to be in touch with Pharo development from the
> perspective of my previous modularization effort I had to say that the
> amount of important changes in Pharo is really huge.

You mean those changes which weren't taken from Squeak?

>
>>> full-timers now. And original goals of Squeak are very different from
>>
>> Hiring more people doesn't mean it will be better.
>>
>>> duplicating of effort already done somewhere else. Squeak has to face
>>
>> What are the original goals of Squeak besides being a general purpose free
>> Smalltalk?
>
>> From Back to the future: "In December of 1995, the authors found
> themselves wanting a development environment in which to build
> educational software that could be used?and even programmed?by
> non-technical people, and by children. We wanted our software to be
> effective in mass-access media such as PDAs and the Internet, where
> download times and power considerations make compactness essential,
> and where hardware is diverse, and operating systems may change or be
> completely absent. Therefore our ideal system would be a small,
> portable kernel of simple and uniform design that could be adapted
> rapidly to new delivery vehicles."
>
> Smalltalk was only an instrument.

The goals were to build a portable VM and something like EToys or Scratch?
If so, those goals were reached long time ago.

>
>>> to competition of Pharo and EToys. Squeakers can "fight" them or use
>>
>> How is EToys competition to Squeak? Is EToys a free general purpose
>> Smalltalk?
>
> Of course not. But for people who want to use EToys, the EToys image
> is more natural choice. That was the main reason why Pharoers stopped
> to support it because it was only a dead weight. For them the concept
> of general purpose Smalltalk (of the Sqeuak's way) is antiquated.
>
> The KernelImage project tried to show that it is possible to have a
> modular Smalltalk with EToys support. But I did it only because it was
> possible not because I really trusted it is a vital concept. I
> supposed that the fact that we will have EToys in a separate package
> will probably show that nobody cares about its support (however I
> didn't wanted that).
>
> Please, can you tell me for what target group of users the Squeak is
> and how it differs from Pharo and EToys? Because I'm confused in that.

Pharo originally targeted developers(*), but now it has the same target 
audience as Squeak.


Levente

(*) Though I didn't see Stephane's presentation at ESUG 2009, but people 
were fascinated by it and foretold the death of Squeak, even though 
Pharo wasn't really different from Squeak+Polymorph back then:
http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/userblogs/mls/blogView?entry=3429226129
But they were proven wrong. Pharo 1.0 was beta at that time, while 
Squeak's "New Community Developement Model" just started. Pharo 1.0 was 
released on 15 April, 2010, while a week later (on 23 April, 2010) Squeak 
4.1 was released which was far ahead of Pharo 1.0.

>
> Cheers,
> -- Pavel
>
>> Levente
>>
>>> them. Please do not let personal disagreements blind you...
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>> -- Pavel
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>