> On 28 Feb 2022, at 21:43, Max Leske <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 28 Feb 2022, at 20:55, Marcus Denker wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>> Fuel for now just ignores the whole “First class Variable” concept and
>>>> serialises the “raw” view of indexed instance
>>>> variables… (which is the right thing to do now), but that would not work
>>>> here anymore.
>>>
>>> Good to know. I'll have to think about how this plays together with the
>>> "classic" architecture.
>>>
>>
>>
>> This is why I am in general not a fan of this idea of code trying to be
>> compatible on that level…
>>
>> To me what fascinated me about Squeak was not to be slavishly compatible to
>> ST80, but to do
>> and do *more*. To take the philosophy and push it further… but that can
>> *not* be done if one
>> want to 100% backward compatible on an implementation level forever...
>>
>> I think my next talk at ESUG will be “Why I am not a Smalltalker”. :-)
>
> lol :D
>
> I know what you mean. I'll have to see what happens with Squeak 6. Maybe
> we'll reach a point where it becomes easier to maintain
> two separate versions. As long as there are users in Squeak I want to support
> them (maybe I'll do a survey
> in the Squeak community at that point, it could also be an option to drop
> support for Squeak if they don't
> use Fuel).
>
It was explained to me, when I said “We did Pharo to have a future”, that
*nobody* in the Squeak community wants or ever wanted
to have a future.
So why waste even 5 minutes on that?
Marcus
