[Vm-dev] [Pharo-dev] Squeak and Pharo speed differences

[Robert]

I prefer the dependency model supported by .mcm files, Monticello Configuration Maps. There has been some recent work to them adding author and comments. Monticello Configuration Maps allows linking of a specific version of dependent packages, across multiple repositories. Evidently there is a way to specify the latest version, but I just link/update specific versions. There is so much I don't know!

My thoughts regarding Metacello are that it solves the problem with side effect complexities, such as #baseline and such messages. It builds subclass to be versioned in turn, with all of the needs. I get it the flex of writing custom protocol for a Metacello subclass. The same is achieved relying on the #startUp: protocols on real domain objects of a robust role. To my experience, Metacello is way too verbose.

TSTTCPW, seems reflected in Monticello maps design. How hard could it be to provide support for them in Pharo? And Tonel? Good Christ!

Kindly, rabbit

On 5/16/20 10:07 AM, Stephan Eggermont wrote:

> Metacello works well across Gemstone, Squeak and Pharo
>
> Verstuurd vanaf mijn iPhone
>
>> Op 16 mei 2020 om 15:33 heeft Robert [<robert.withers at pm.me>](mailto:robert.withers at pm.me) het volgende geschreven:
>
>> 
>>
>> Hi Shaping,
>>
>> On 5/16/20 8:47 AM, Shaping wrote:
>>
>>> Can you tell me about those efforts?  I know the VM is one, maybe the biggest.  What else do Squeak folks work on?
>>>
>>>  I also understand why the developers of the new Pharo preferences tree did not like to invest the same effort in Squeak. What incentive would they have?
>>>
>>> Make all features (GUIs/frameworks) loadable into a new, mostly empty image.
>>
>> Andso, here we have the biggest challenge to doing such sharing. You say all features should be loadable into either image. The issue is that Pharo has driven forwards in creating new load formats, such as Tonel. I tried to load up the Tonel format, but failed. I couldn't get distracted from my core work.
>>
>> NO EFFORTS have been made to have Squeak able to load such formats, and the Pharo folks have deprecated the existing Montecello load format, from a long time in Squeak. In particular, it is not possible to load a Monticello Configuration Map in Pharo and Squeak can't load the newer formats Pharo has created. So there is no commonality of load systems between Squeak/Pharo. It totally sucks. That is step number one to having features co-loadable, common load systems. I recall someone from the Pharo side being disparaging to the Monticello load format, so there is no interested in making features cross-image. NONE. ZERO! It is a hard fork. So sad. :(
>>
>> K, r
>>
>> --
>> Kindly,
>> Robert

--
Kindly,
Robert
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/attachments/20200516/1412fe60/attachment.html>