<html><head></head><body>
<p>Hi Shaping,<br/>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 5/16/20 8:47 AM, Shaping wrote:<br/>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:029e01d62b80$3152da50$93f88ef0$@uurda.org">
<p class="MsoPlainText">Can you tell me about those efforts? I
know the VM is one, maybe the biggest. What else do Squeak
folks work on?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"> <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText" style="margin-left:.5in"> I also
understand why the developers of the new Pharo preferences tree
did not like to invest the same effort in Squeak. What incentive
would they have?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoPlainText">Make all features (GUIs/frameworks)
loadable into a new, mostly empty image.</p>
</blockquote>
<p><br/>
</p>
<p>Andso, here we have the biggest challenge to doing such sharing.
You say all features should be loadable into either image. The
issue is that Pharo has driven forwards in creating new load
formats, such as Tonel. I tried to load up the Tonel format, but
failed. I couldn't get distracted from my core work.<br/>
</p>
<p>NO EFFORTS have been made to have Squeak able to load such
formats, and the Pharo folks have deprecated the existing
Montecello load format, from a long time in Squeak. In particular,
it is not possible to load a Monticello Configuration Map in Pharo
and Squeak can't load the newer formats Pharo has created. So
there is no commonality of load systems between Squeak/Pharo. It
totally sucks. That is step number one to having features
co-loadable, common load systems. I recall someone from the Pharo
side being disparaging to the Monticello load format, so there is
no interested in making features cross-image. NONE. ZERO! It is a
hard fork. So sad. :(<br/>
</p>
<p>K, r<br/>
</p>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Kindly,
Robert</pre>
</body></html>