El mié, 11-11-2009 a las 00:52 +0200, Igor Stasenko escribió:

> >> Do you need Squeak for some reason? If not, just use Pharo.
> >
> > An honest questions, if he needs squeak then well try to fix the problem
> > for Squeak. If he doesn't need squeak, then why lose time, use Pharo and
> > get *the real problem in his hand* solved and go on.
> >
> 
> Wrong. The more correct would be "use Pharo and get another, different
> problem at hand".
> And its nothing to do with fact that Pharo is better or worse than
> Squeak, this is the nature of things, when forks each progressing in
> own direction.
> >From that perspective your proposal is bad & blatant. That's why i
> said - respect people choice.
> 

But nobody is forcing him to use Pharo, just that, as in other reply
Torsten said, the Citezen package has been tested on Pharo:

>From the wiki of the Citezen page:

Package organization
Quick pharo install:
Installer ss project: 'Citezen'; install: 'Citezen-Loader'


and the *the real problem in his hand* it appeared, I realize now,
to point to Squeak, but I was refering to the application he was trying to build.
That is what he should focus effort and not in trying to chase the cause of the problem
when trying to load Citezen on Squeak.

So, one more time I didn't bash Squeak just asked if he needed Squeak for something
indispensable to his project so that if not, he could just use Pharo and continue building
his own project.

I will not discuss more this topic.

-- 
Miguel Cobá
http://miguel.leugim.com.mx