About squeak image compatibility (3.6/7/8)
Andreas Raab
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Mon Jan 9 06:20:55 UTC 2006
Cees De Groot wrote:
> Could you substantiate that claim? I think that Traits introduces
> extremely little compatibility issues...
Well, I think that depends a *lot* on your perspective of the system. It
would be more accurate to restate the above to say that there should be
very little compatibility issues, UNLESS:
* you actually start using 3.9, in which case you'll have issues with
porting back stuff to older Squeak versions (this will be a serious
issue for packages that are and should be used in older versions of
Squeak - will these older versions of Monticello be able to deal with
class definition that have been created in 3.9? etc)
* you assume a stable interface in classes and meta classes (this got
seriously broken in 3.7, then again in 3.8, and now again in 3.9 - it is
amazing how little continuity there has been in such a critical part of
the system)
* you use meta tools that rely on the previously available semantic
entities (which excludes traits)
* you use meta tools that rely on previously stable representations
(class definitions in particular)
Now, I'm not saying that everyone will be affected by (or even care
about) the above but if you are in either situation it is pretty safe to
assume you'll be severely screwed one way or another. Case in point:
Without appropriate fixes Monticello and file contents browser are
invariably broken (and so is the VW parcel that allows people to load
Squeak code).
And of course, another major difference in perspective is whether you
are on the breaking or the broken side of things. People don't like
their stuff to get broken by other people so any claim that this is
"extremely little" is not likely to get you many friends - in particular
if the breakage (as so often) is undocumented and you'll probably find
out the hard way. And I think you'd be well advised to keep that in mind.
Cheers,
- Andreas
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|