Hi Chris,

I'm sorry if I might have somehow seemed rude but I never implied that it was Squeak's Board fault in any way.  Btw, English is not my first language!

I really think we shouldn't consider Pharo as a Squeak fork anymore : they have their own agenda and it's clear that compatibility (a hot topic on the Pharo mailing list these days) is not a concern for them.  They want their own ship, their own people, their own infrastructure, their own vision, their own way of doing things, their own tools (do you really want Nautilus for Squeak ?!?!  Or Zinc ?!?!), their own destination...  Whcih is clearly not the same destination as ours (Squeakers).

Who's concerned by decisions taken by Cincom or Instatiations here (from a Squeak perspective)?  No one, because we live in different worlds.  Well, it's time to recognize the same thing with Pharo : they now live in a different galaxy than ours.

It's time to do/manage/build our own things, our own way, in our own space.


 
-----------------
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 2:31:57 PM
>Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Squeaksource, Squeak and Pharo..
> 
>
>On 2012-12-20 2:23 PM, Benoit St-Jean wrote:
>
>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?
>>
>>
Yes, I agree. It's a problem. And all the points you make are valid. And this time, thank you, you came up with some examples with things examples you like and would like to see. Others reading this will find that useful for the process of finding a solution. 
>
>I will say this, though. Sometimes, it's not as easy as it seems. By
    that I mean there can be a technical solution available that people
    do not want to use. They just don't like it: the interface; the
    experience; the process, whatever. That's SqueakMap. When the
    SqueakMap advocate shows up the first thing he will say is:
    "SqueakMap solves all those problems. It does all that." And you
    know what, he has a point. 
>
>But if people don't want to use it... You see, Benoit, the problem
    is less about code and about something else. But smart are people
    thinking about this. They want a solution too. 
>
>Chris 
>
>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/20121220/3fdbaa9e/attachment.htm