... and Xerox revivals start forking :

https://github.com/no-defun-allowed/Smalltalk/
https://github.com/michaelengel/crosstalk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyaQavN9rVA

cheers,

     Davide

On 19/10/2020 03:19, Jecel Assumpcao Jr wrote:
> Trygve Reenskaug wrote on Tue, 13 Oct 2020 10:37:38 +0200
>> How I wish that the Smalltalk world had at least one good
>> implementation (distinct implementation rather than dialect.)
>> of ST80. Squeak is, of course, a moving target that leaves a
>> trail of bit rotting software in darkness behind it. (sigh)
> There have actually been two new virtual machines developed for
> Smalltalk-80 in the past year or so. Both are hobby projects, though
> with todays very fast computers even such can be very usable. I don't
> know the legality of using the old Xerox image, however.
>
> The image is museum quality: the exact bits it had in the early 1980s.
> But that is just because nobody is actually using it. For the
> Smalltalk-78 restoration project, for example, they started fixing and
> improving stuff and that is what Alan demoed. So I doubt that a
> Smalltalk-80 that a group actually used would change any less than
> Squeak does.
>
> There is always the option of using older Squeaks. I am typing this in
> Squeak 4.1 and for a project I wanted a very small image for I am using
> Squeak 2.2. It isn't always easy to find a virtual machine that will run
> on current operating systems and that can accept such old images. And
> obviously I have to do without more than two decades of bug fixes, but
> that is a price I am willing to pay.
>
> Pharo changes a lot more than Squeak does (the fork was so it could do
> so), but what about Cuis? I know its goal is simplicity and not
> historical stability but my impression is that you get a bit of that as
> well.
>
> -- Jecel
>
> https://github.com/dbanay/Smalltalk
>
> https://github.com/rochus-keller/Smalltalk
>
-- 
Ing. Davide Grandi
email    : davide.grandi at email.it
linkedin : http://linkedin.com/in/davidegrandi