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@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 look ;-))
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
Cheers, --MarkM