If I remember correctly, it was easy to port Moose from VW to Pharo, because there was a lot of tests. I'm currently working on porting another software from VW to Pharo without any tests and I'm suffering ;-)
On Wed, Jun 10, 2015 at 8:36 PM, Trygve Reenskaug <tryg...@ifi.uio.no> wrote: > Stef, > Why be sorry? It's great that you have a stable kernel in Pharo. Where do I > find the definition of the Pharo public API? > > In which way is the Pharo technology that underlies Moose more complex than > BabyIDE? Porting BabyIDE from Squeak 3.10 to 4.5 was hard because it extends > the Squeak Parser and debugger and that this is unknown territory to me. > There remains, of course, minorproblems and bugs caused by changes in the > various services offered by the Squeak kernel. > > It's clear that one port went without a hitch for you. That does not mean > that porting BabyIDE to Pharo will be equally simple. And may be the people > who did your port do not share my extensive ignorance of the Pharo innards > and the nature of the changes in the release? I am not a Pharo creator. I > was considering to become a Pharo user but reconsidered when I read what you > say below. This was partly because I believe you underestimate the work > needed to port BabyIDE to Pharo and partly because you do not appear to > appreciate the need that programmers (your customers) have for a stable > programming language. > Trygve > > On 09.06.2015 19:59, stepharo wrote: > > I'm sorry to say that Pharo public API does not change that much. > We could port all Moose in one afternoon and Moose is certainly more complex > :). > > Stef -- Serge Stinckwich UCBN & UMI UMMISCO 209 (IRD/UPMC) Every DSL ends up being Smalltalk http://www.doesnotunderstand.org/
