On 11/02/13 9:18 AM, Stéphane Rollandin wrote:
> ... It seems to me that backward compatibility is
> jeopardized in this process (I know it's not a Pharo value, but it is a
> Squeak one).

<rant>
What's up with some people in the Squeak "camp" trying to artificially 
draw distinctions between Squeak and Pharo - to the point of FUD, like 
the above statement.

Of course "backward compatibility" is of value to everybody. A less 
antagonistic way to state the Pharo point of view, is that: if backward 
compatibility would block forward progress, or is too costly to provide, 
then, choose to drop compatibility (and if proven wrong in that 
decision, put back the compatibility - which has occurred already).

How is that different from what Squeak has to do? IMHO, the difference 
is in the cost the community is willing to pay for compatibility, and 
the rate at which forward progress can be made. That's the choice 
individuals and communities choose, nothing wrong with that.
</rant>