On 05.03.2010, at 22:04, Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez wrote:
> 
> El vie, 05-03-2010 a las 21:07 +0100, Michael Haupt escribió:
>> Hi Miguel,
>> 
>> Am 05.03.2010 um 20:46 schrieb Miguel Enrique Cobá Martinez <miguel.coba at gmail.co 
>> m>:
>>> That is better? :)
>> 
>> nah. If yer intae oinchis, take a proper truck. ;-)
>> 
>> Seriously, I see your point, and I think we agree that it really boils  
>> down to interest. 
> 
> Exactly. And that is precisely the issue that Pharo is solving. Squeak
> don't give a cent about other uses outside of educational ones. They
> have its point, I concede.

There is no point to concede, that's simply a false accusation. I have no problem discussing actual issues, but I'd appreciate if you took unfounded bashing elsewhere.

Fact is, most of the developers on this list are *not* working on educational subjects. They want a practical Smalltalk that *includes* support for every conceivable use case.

> But Pharo is the way to go for a lot of people that want a medium for
> deploying enterprise application (web or desktop).

As is Squeak. There are enterprise desktop applications as well as web ones built in it. But that's besides the point.

Pharo is moving faster towards a smaller modular image. Squeak is on that way too, but we are slower because we are trying to not burn bridges. Refactoring something to be unloadable and reloadable is more work than just ripping out what's considered unnecessary (plus Squeakers consider less things unnecessary). *That* is the major current difference between Squeak and Pharo.

But eventually I fully expect the two to become more similar as both get leaner and more modular. There could even be a point where e.g. Etoys would work as well on top of a Pharo kernel image as a Squeak kernel image. We just have differing approaches about how to get from here to there.

Have fun,

- Bert -