<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Igor Stasenko <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:siguctua@gmail.com">siguctua@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
2009/11/16 Göran Krampe <<a href="mailto:goran@krampe.se">goran@krampe.se</a>>:<br><div class="im">
> If we could also get say... some really slick concurrency mechanisms<br>
> (Promises? Asynch messages?) either into a really good library and/or into<br>
> the language - I really think we should stop being so afraid of modifying<br>
> the language and its core. That is my incoherent point really.<br>
><br>
> Regarding Pharo etc, IMHO it's "just a fork". And forks are good. Really. :)<br>
> As long as we don't build fences between them (mentally or technically).<br>
><br>
<br>
</div>+1 i have the same view on it. More forks is more good.<br>
Ironically, but it shows that Squeak, despite flaws & crap, has very<br>
high development potential,<br>
because forks possible, only when original design allows that without<br>
much sacrifice.<br>
So people, instead of complete rewrite of everything, could change<br>
system incrementally to satisfy their own needs.<br>
<div><div></div><br></div></blockquote></div><br>IMHO, Squeak should reduce itself to a kernel that people can make forks of.<br><br>Gulik.<br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><a href="http://gulik.pbwiki.com/">http://gulik.pbwiki.com/</a><br>