>
> I'm not sure that's true.  Say it becomes yet another fork, separate
> (necessarily, at first, because it's a different image format) from
> all of the other forks.  As long as most packages can be loaded into
> it, it'll get used.  Maybe not by the people doing the forking (by
> Scratch, say, or Squeakland), but by the majority of us who have a few
> pet packages (in my case, Seaside, OmniBrowser, DabbleDB, etc) that we
> can load into nearly any Squeak image and feel at home.  I'm pretty
> happy to load those into a MinimalMorphic image this month, a Pharo
> image next month, and a Cog image the month after, if there's some
> compelling reason to do so - and 10x performance would certainly be
> compelling.
>
> A shared microkernel would be nice, but I don't think it's essential
> in the short term to drive adoption of a new technology.
>
>
Ditto, as I said earlier, I care about my packages, not which squeak image
is the base, but for a 10x bump in speed, I'd certainly take the time to
port everything I use, if only for deployment.  Getting everyone on a common
kernel would take something really compelling them all to feel the same way,
a 10x bump in speed *is certainly* compelling.

Ramon Leon
http://onsmalltalk.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20090228/6bc22c5d/attachment.htm