Draft Consensus Plan (was: Comments on Anthony's "...Shared
Mark S. Miller
markm at caplet.com
Sun Feb 9 19:31:30 CET 2003
I'll answer in terms of the 'Draft Consensus Plan' I just posted. Hence the
change of title.
At 01:45 PM 2/8/2003 Saturday, cg at cdegroot.com wrote:
>[...] 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.
Is 'unsafe Squeak' == current Squeak? If so, then this is in line with the
Draft Consensus Plan.
> 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).
What kind of "faster" did you have in mind? Development time or runtime?
For runtime, I don't think it should make much difference either way.
For development time, some things will be faster to tame, others will be
faster to refactor/port. Of course, for the long term, you'd rather
refactor/port, so it's good to err on that side.
>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
Cool! What are your license constraints. I hope you chose a Mozilla
compatible license (most anything other than GPL). My preference is MIT X.
Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain
More information about the Squeak-e