2008/4/8 Michael van der Gulik <mikevdg at gmail.com>:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 11:19 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I'm aware of at least two of module-based solutions for Squeak:
> > - Spoon by Craig Latta
> > - Namespaces by Michael van Der Gulik , as part of his SecureSqueak
> project
> >
> > Both systems currently in development. And almost 99% it is solo
> > development by their authors.
> > Both systems having own pros and cons , and it's hard to decide (as
> > for me), which is better for the future of Squeak.
>
>
> FWIW, "SecureSqueak" isn't going to be the future of Squeak; it's going to
> be a fork. It's going to be too different from Squeak to be a good candidate
> for a future version.
>

Yes, if you read my latest post in this thread about forks. Isn't it
would be better to make fork become Squeak in that way? ;)
I don't want to repeat myself, but do you think it wouldn't be better
to incorporate module-based system in Squeak release?
Because if not, then obviously Squeak community will be forked as
well. Is there a way to put stop on this? Can we make a system which
will make need of forking unnecessary?

> Gulik.
> --
> http://people.squeakfoundation.org/person/mikevdg
> http://gulik.pbwiki.com/
>
>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.