[squeak-dev] Re: [Vm-dev] preferred methodology for handling Pharo'isms on Squeak?

Nicolas Cellier nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com
Sat May 10 19:00:35 UTC 2014


2014-05-10 20:27 GMT+02:00 Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>:

>
> Hi Tty,
>
>
> On Sat, May 10, 2014 at 8:17 AM, gettimothy <gettimothy at zoho.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi All.
>>
>> Is there a preferred methodology for handling Pharo-isms on Squeak?
>>
>> I know Seaside has Grease which does some of that, but I don't thing we
>> want Grease for CMakeVMMaker (or do we).
>>
>> Specifically, the Pharo team has abstracted out some stuff in
>> SmalltalkImage (vm, platform..) that does not exist in Squeak.
>>
>>
>> If there is an existing mechanism for bridging this gap, I will use it.
>>
>> In the meantime, I will be DTSTTCW.
>>
>
> +1.  But I recommend a compatibility package that is loaded alongside to
> provide the missing support in Squeak.  Then methods (& classes) can be
> moved from there into Squeak when we see fit.
>
>
The biggest source of differences is usage of FileSystem.
FileSystem was originally written by Colin Putney in Squeak, so it should
work well in Squeak.
IMO, the best thing would be to integrate FileSystem in Squeak.

However the Pharo team has significantly modified the API.
So now there is a dilemna: which FileSystem should we include in Squeak?

I'm for integrating the version of Pharo, in order to reduce the gratuitous
differences.
Unless there are reasons for not doing so.
We should ask Colin, not sure if he follow this list, so I cross post on
Squeak-dev.



>
>
>>
>>
>> cordially,
>>
>> tty
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> best,
> Eliot
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20140510/c8130612/attachment.htm


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list