El vie, 05-03-2010 a las 21:07 +0100, Michael Haupt escribió:
> Hi Miguel,
> 
> Am 05.03.2010 um 20:46 schrieb Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez <miguel.coba at gmail.co 
> m>:
> > That is better? :)
> 
> nah. If yer intae oinchis, take a proper truck. ;-)
> 
> Seriously, I see your point, and I think we agree that it really boils  
> down to interest. 

Exactly. And that is precisely the issue that Pharo is solving. Squeak
don't give a cent about other uses outside of educational ones. They
have its point, I concede.
But Pharo is the way to go for a lot of people that want a medium for
deploying enterprise application (web or desktop).
I now that there were attempts to build a minimal squeak from Pavel and
from Edgar (don't know if someone else) but they weren't Squeak, they
were a single man efforts, and without the backing of Squeak they
doomed. 
Squeak followed its own way, not listening to some important part of
their community. Squeak was all about education (mainly), but the
community wasn't. So Pharo gives a community maintained, minimal (even
Pavel has made a new minimal Pharo core image that when ready very
probably will become the new PharoCore that loads everything with
Metacello configurations) kernel that we can use _now_ to deploy dozens
of images at the time in production servers without wasting cpu cycles
and bytes in thins not needed/used in the image deployed.


> So what? Neither is "better".

Fully agree, but for me and my users, Pharo is the way to go.
Better to add to a tested core than delete from a big image and hope
that it works.

Cheers

> 
> Best,
> 
> Michael

-- 
Miguel Cobá
http://miguel.leugim.com.mx