updates vs. images -- limiting squeak to code

Alan Grimes alangrimes at starpower.net
Thu Oct 13 11:45:17 UTC 2005


Michal wrote:
> So de facto, if you kill smooth upgrades (which is what we are talking
> about), you come close to killing the use of squeak for non-code
> objects. Modifying my initial reaction slightly: please don't kill
> updating images, unless you have solved the issue of "easy transfer
> [of] this stuff from image to image". (Though I suspect that when
> you've solved that, you've also solved the initial problem about
> upgrading code ;)

mee tooo!

I still consider my 3.7 image to be my "workhorse" image because I
havn't figured out how to migrate everything I was doing in it over to
3.8...

I have about half a dozen squeak images these days, each of thim has
non-overlapping functionality. I was thinking of making a post to the
list myself on this subject.


-- 
Friends don't let friends use GCC 3.4.4
GCC 3.3.6 produces code that's twice as fast on x86!

http://users.rcn.com/alangrimes/



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list