> If people want to look for a difference between Squeak and Pharo, I think
> this is emerging as a possible difference. Neither is right or wrong. If you

Yes, this is the philosophical difference between Squeak and Pharo.

Bill wrote:

> There is also something to be said about simplicity.  It makes sense to put
> the time into extensibility when you find you need to extend something.

Yes, that's true.  It's also good to remember that these are
modifiable systems, not Java.  In Java, you *need* "ultimate
frameworks" for even simple things so you can
extend-without-modifying, since modifying the base code is not
allowed.

In the case of Squeak, it *is* the framework; a framework of being a
complete, modifiable computing system (Pharo has the same capability,
but I'm referring to philosophy).  In a modifiable system TSTTCPW and
YAGNI *can* be employed until the last possible moment; when the code
no longer meets requirements and must be upgraded, but doing so is too
difficult.  A Squeak-developer's philosophy is, "I have very important
things to work on and limited time.  Although this code is ugly, it's
still WORKING FOR ME, therefore I don't want to turn around and WORK
FOR IT at this time."    IOW, lazy, JIT upgrading rather than eager
upgrading.

---------------

I hope we can keep our rhetoric constructive and turn this distinction
between our two camps into a strength instead of a brawl.  I think
Squeak could benefit from adopting Lukas' (and others') great work.

No one has yet commented about my suggestion.  Let me say it one more time:

   Strip Installer of functions redundant with Gofer so it's smaller,
employ Gofer for those functions.  We end up with not many more LOC
than we need.  Everyone can be happy about having minimal amount of
code in our images...???

 - Chris