2009/11/17 Michael van der Gulik <mikevdg at gmail.com>:
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 10:37 PM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 2009/11/16 Göran Krampe <goran at krampe.se>:
>> > If we could also get say... some really slick concurrency mechanisms
>> > (Promises? Asynch messages?) either into a really good library and/or
>> > into
>> > the language - I really think we should stop being so afraid of
>> > modifying
>> > the language and its core. That is my incoherent point really.
>> >
>> > Regarding Pharo etc, IMHO it's "just a fork". And forks are good.
>> > Really. :)
>> > As long as we don't build fences between them (mentally or technically).
>> >
>>
>> +1 i have the same view on it. More forks is more good.
>> Ironically, but it shows that Squeak, despite flaws & crap, has very
>> high development potential,
>> because forks possible, only when original design allows that without
>> much sacrifice.
>> So people, instead of complete rewrite of everything, could change
>> system incrementally to satisfy their own needs.
>>
>
> IMHO, Squeak should reduce itself to a kernel that people can make forks of.
>

reduction is a bit too strong word. Splitting on modules is more correct.
Potentially, community can maintain a much larger code base, not just kernel.
But it is critical to keep things in such state, that any optional
component (all but kernel) could be easily
and cleanly removed from system at user's will.


> Gulik.
>
>
> --
> http://gulik.pbwiki.com/
>
>
>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.