<div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">I'm not sure that's true. Say it becomes yet another fork, separate<br>
(necessarily, at first, because it's a different image format) from<br>
all of the other forks. As long as most packages can be loaded into<br>
it, it'll get used. Maybe not by the people doing the forking (by<br>
Scratch, say, or Squeakland), but by the majority of us who have a few<br>
pet packages (in my case, Seaside, OmniBrowser, DabbleDB, etc) that we<br>
can load into nearly any Squeak image and feel at home. I'm pretty<br>
happy to load those into a MinimalMorphic image this month, a Pharo<br>
image next month, and a Cog image the month after, if there's some<br>
compelling reason to do so - and 10x performance would certainly be<br>
compelling.<br>
<br>
A shared microkernel would be nice, but I don't think it's essential<br>
in the short term to drive adoption of a new technology.<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br>Ditto, as I said earlier, I care about my packages, not which squeak image is the base, but for a 10x bump in speed, I'd certainly take the time to port everything I use, if only for deployment. Getting everyone on a common kernel would take something really compelling them all to feel the same way, a 10x bump in speed *is certainly* compelling.<br>
<br>Ramon Leon<br><a href="http://onsmalltalk.com">http://onsmalltalk.com</a><br>