FYI, I did post my remarks/concerns on the Squeak and Pharo mailing lists regarding this subject a year ago but it just seems like nobody read or did care.

Secondly, as I said, a year ago, we should definitely have *separate* code repositories for Squeak and Pharo.  I just closed Squeak 30 seconds ago, being totally fed up with packages that wouldn't load...  Right now, both environments are polluting the code of the other and it's nonsense...  You know the kind of horror story where version 7 (Squeak) fixes version 6 (Pharo) that now became version 8 (Pharo again) but that will be fixed as a combo of version 6 and 8 for Squeak?

Can't we have something simple like the Cincom Public Repository ???

Could you commit Ruby code to the CRAN (Comprehensive R Arcive Network) ?  No!  You know why?  Those are 2 different beasts, just like Squeak and Pharo.  And seeing at which speed Pharo is moving away from "standard" (for lack of a better word) Smalltalk, this "problem will happen more and more and more.

How useful is Squeak if all the code available is slowly becoming "Pharo-only friendly" ?

In other words, we should setup our *own* SQUEAK ONLY repository, make sure people set a "platform target" (say Squeak 4.4 or 4.3) for migration (and tell the project owners that they should make an effort to port their code to Squeak 4.x) and start from there...

Now, try to imagine a newbie who's trying to load  a single package (say ODBC), connect to a database, select one row and experiment with Smalltalk...  Oh, wait!  ScriptLoader loadFFi doesn't work! Oh wait! I read on the wiki that I had to compile the fields for ExternalStructure by hand because of a bug...  Oh wait, the ODBCEnh contains Pharo stuff...  Oh wait, Package X contains references to stuff that is "Pharo only".  Oh wait, I'll use this other tool...  Nah, contains Pharo stuff again...  I'll then use package Y then...  Oh wait, what's that Zinc stuff ?  Well, I guess you get the picture...

Now, compare this with VisualWorks and the Cincom Public Repository...  Connect, load, done.


 
-----------------
Benoit St-Jean
Yahoo! Messenger: bstjean
A standpoint is an intellectual horizon of radius zero.
(Albert Einstein)


>________________________________
> From: Chris Cunnington <smalltalktelevision at gmail.com>
>To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
>Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2012 1:06:36 PM
>Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Squeaksource, Squeak and Pharo..
> 
>
>On 2012-12-20 12:25 PM, Benoit St-Jean wrote:
>
>How useful...  This is the kind of stuff that makes me wanna shout!
>>
>>
>>
>><complaint>
>>
>>
>>I just installed Squeak 4.3 to migrate some code I had on an older Squeak 4.x image...
>>
>>
>>Loaded some of the tools I use, like ScriptManager to realize... That the newest versions are for Pharo! With references to stuff that doesn't exist in Squeak. 
>>
>>
>>
>>In other words, the more commits to existing project in Squeaksource (or anywhere else where the code used to be "Squeak friendly" and/or developed for Squeak in the first place) the Pharo people do, the less and less those projects will work with Squeak!
>>
>>
>>It's just as if Volkswagen would take over the manufacturing of parts for Honda and would adapt all parts for THEIR engines...  If I have a Honda, what can I do?  :(  
>>
>>
>>
>>With Pharo moving away from Squeak (and most other Smalltalks in fact), if we don't find a way to clearly split what is "Pharo friendly" from what is "Squeak friendly" (I resisted using the word "compatible"), where are we heading ???
>>
>>
>></complaint>
>>
>>
>>P.S.  This is going to be a nightmare if we don't act before the Pharo people have "adapted" tons of stuff to *their* environment...
>>
>> 
>>-----------------
>>Benoit St-Jean
>>Yahoo! Messenger: bstjean
>>A standpoint is an intellectual horizon of radius zero.
>>(Albert Einstein)
>>
>>
>>
Yea, it's an interesting point. I hear you shouting, but who are you shouting to? You've found a problem, and somebody™ is supposed to solve if for you. Is that correct? Who? 
>
>I'm on the Squeak Board and from my point of view, you're
    observation would be more compelling if you proposed a solution to
    what you've discovered. If you just say it's a problem and somebody™
    should fix it, I'm not that interested. Especially when you cannot
    even take the time to think of a few criteria of the problem that
    may be used to fix it. 
>
>Here's what I can tell you. Squeak infrastructure is not responsible
    for every project in existence. You're first solution would be to
    talk to the maintainers of that project. None of the maintainers of
    ScriptManager are Squeakers. Might that tell you something? 
>
>
>http://www.squeaksource.com/ScriptManager
>The Squeak Board is in the process of looking at this issue, though.
    And I can say what is on the horizon. The first thing we will have
    is community supported packages tested regularly in images in the
    Squeak CI server. There will be a list of packages, a top twenty
    list, say, of packages that will be known to be the responsibility
    of the community. 
>
>Now, wouldn't it be good if there was something like SqueakMap,
    something separate from Squeaksource and SqueakSource3, that was a
    Squeak-only location for packages? They you'd know that you had come
    to the right "app store". We're working on that too. But I don't
    think it will be SqueakMap, which in my opinion has run its course.
    So were looking at this issue. But SqueakMap is a contentious issue.
    Very contentious. There are those who would like to put a stick of
    dynamite in it. And those who get extremely incensed at even the
    thought. (Actually, even the word, in public, like I just did.
    Counting down in ... four...three ... two...oh, look!) 
>
>So, we're looking at that. And in the near future, say Squeak 4.5,
    there will be better guidelines around these problems. 
>
>You could load the same packages into the new Squeak4.3 that you
    loaded before. If you want the latest Squeak in addition to the
    latest versions of the packages, well, then I think you may need to
    do some work. And when the infrastructure I just described is in
    place, there will most certainly be packages that, all that new
    infrastructure notwithstanding, will be nobody's responsibility but
    yours and the actual package developer. 
>
>Chris 
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20121220/254b3b8b/attachment.htm