On 8/23/2010 4:28 AM, Pavel Krivanek wrote:
> Hi Andreas,
>
> the latest KernelImage based on Squeak 3.10 is here:
> http://comtalk.cz/public/pub/KernelImage/current/
> I continuously compared the image to Squeak and commented the changes.
> For more information see http://www.squeaksource.com/KernelImage.html.

Thanks Pavel, that's *hugely* helpful. I'm seriously wondering how I 
could have missed that - the only explanation I have is that this must 
have happened when I didn't pay any attention to Squeak :-)

One thing that I'm not sure about is how to interpret the scripts at the 
above URL - are they used to create the package structure in the 
KernelImage repository or are they for something different?

In any case, I think that's very good starting point. I'm curious, Juan, 
how does that stack up to Cuis? Is that similar to the structure you've 
ended up with or very different?

> There are several possible approaches:
> - take the original KernelImage and adopt it for the latest Squeak. It
> should be quite easy.
> - do the similar remodularization and patches as the Pharo did. The
> package structure of Pharo and Squeak then will be very similar.
> - Pharo did a lot of important work on the cleanup of the system, it
> has wider and motivated community of developers and its goals are
> subset of goals of Squeak. What about to use whole Pharo as the basic
> system for Squeak and let Pharo people to finish its modularization
> and focus on tasks important for Squeak? Give me week or two and I
> will show you that it's possible to load EToys and other Squeak
> specific stuff to Pharo...

I'm sure it's possible given enough effort. But it won't matter. The 
issue isn't technical, the rift between Squeak and Pharo is something 
that is the result of both personal as well philosophical differences. 
Contrary to which Cuis is much closer to Squeak; not only is Juan a 
Squeak board member, but the idea of having a system that a single 
person can understand is dear to all of us, I think :-)

Cheers,
   - Andreas