Hi, 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? > That is an interesting request coming from someone that > 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. > It is not one port. We are developing Moose on top of Pharo since 7 years. Even though Moose depends quite deeply on the inner workings of Pharo (package model, code model, RB AST, inspector, debugger, canvas, text editor), we could consistently move it between successive versions with limited effort (typically measured in days). > That does not mean that porting BabyIDE to Pharo will be equally simple. > The comparison is not quite fair :). The point of Stef was about moving between versions of Pharo, not between Squeak and Pharo. > 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. > The choice belongs to you, but I do not quite understand your line of reasoning. What Stef said is that even if Pharo changes fast, there is evidence to show that even in larger projects moving between successive versions of Pharo is a handle-able undertaking. Now, about BabyIDE. I think it is certainly an interesting project, and it would be interesting to have it in Pharo. If you need help, you can always ask on the Pharo lists and you typically get the expected answers. Cheers, Doru > > 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 > > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow"
