[Squeak-e] Comments on Anthony's "...Shared Smalltalk"

cg at cdegroot.com cg at cdegroot.com
Sat Feb 8 21:45:07 CET 2003

Mark S. Miller <squeak-e at lists.squeakfoundation.org> said:
>I think that, by doing this, we can eventually build back up to something 
>close to the level of functionality of current Squeak. But the result will 
>not be compatible. You cannot add inabilities to a system the way you add a 
>new package. New inabilities means that some old code must break.
I agree that this is the only feasible way. What I've constantly been
thinking is that you could ease the transition somewhat by providing
'unsafe Squeak' below Squeak-E in order to have all the
bells'n'whistles, not unlike the Java/E relation. However, we could be
*way* faster in a situation where everything that *can* run in Squeak-E
will actually run in Squeak-E because it is 'merely' a matter of
refactoring, not rewriting (and we've got the better tools).

On a side note, I've prepared a version of Squeak that I might be able
to redistribute under an open source license (no traces of any Apple
fonts in the image ;-)). In order to attract the widest audience, it
might be an idea to work on that particular version (which I've dubbed
'CleanSqueak' because the license is cleaned up and my forceful
replacement of all original fonts with Helvetica gives quite a clean
look ;-))

Cees de Groot               http://www.cdegroot.com     <cg at cdegroot.com>
GnuPG 1024D/E0989E8B 0016 F679 F38D 5946 4ECD  1986 F303 937F E098 9E8B
Cogito ergo evigilo

More information about the Squeak-e mailing list