Yanni,

I think Stéphane refers to the original Pharo manifesto which clearly
states "no backward compatibility".  http://code.google.com/p/pharo/

However the current Pharo web page has a mission statement
   http://www.pharo-project.org/about
sets a much more moderate tone.

In any case in this thread we want to move on towards a Squeak core
and learn from the Pharo experience as much as possible. Please let us
not digress from this important topic.

Maybe we should follow both at the same time

Let me call it
- the Pavel Krivanek approach and
- the
     SmalltalkImage unloadAllKnownPackages
  approach

BTW
#unloadAllKnownPackages

used to work in Squeak 4.1, see
  http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2010-August/152427.html

So there is no reason why we should not manage to get it working again
in Squeak 4.5alpha.

And Pavel's approach may be followed in parallel. Because fixing one
thing will help the other and vice-verse.

--Hannes

On 2/11/13, Yanni Chiu <yanni at rogers.com> wrote:
> On 11/02/13 9:18 AM, Stéphane Rollandin wrote:
>> ... It seems to me that backward compatibility is
>> jeopardized in this process (I know it's not a Pharo value, but it is a
>> Squeak one).
>
> <rant>
> What's up with some people in the Squeak "camp" trying to artificially
> draw distinctions between Squeak and Pharo - to the point of FUD, like
> the above statement.
>
> Of course "backward compatibility" is of value to everybody. A less
> antagonistic way to state the Pharo point of view, is that: if backward
> compatibility would block forward progress, or is too costly to provide,
> then, choose to drop compatibility (and if proven wrong in that
> decision, put back the compatibility - which has occurred already).
>
> How is that different from what Squeak has to do? IMHO, the difference
> is in the cost the community is willing to pay for compatibility, and
> the rate at which forward progress can be made. That's the choice
> individuals and communities choose, nothing wrong with that.
> </rant>
>
>
>