Personally I dont get it, we find the path to bootstrap the pharo image clear and we cannot see the path to namespaces ?
it makes zero sense to me Plus what you say, countless and countless of implementation of namespaces out there. And again what you say about perfection. If C++ can improve, If C++ can dream of namespaces planning the introduction of modules(in future version) in replacement (not removal) of his awful header file format.... I think we got the excuse to be confident we can come up with something decent. We develop a freaking IDE for crying out loud. No it wont be a walk in the park, no it wont get done in one or next version, and no it cannot be an individual our outside effort. But we have the community super qualified to do it. On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 8:51 AM Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 8:52 PM, Sean P. DeNigris <s...@clipperadams.com> > wrote: > >> horrido wrote >> > Having separate namespaces would be really good. >> > VisualWorks has them. Why not Pharo? >> >> I can't remember ever hearing disagreement on this subject. It seems the >> only questions have been: 1) how to do them *right*, > > > The default position would be leveraging someone else's experience, so > this begs the question, what is wrong in namespace implementations in VW, > Gemstone, Squeak (as our immediate neighbours, then plus Dolphin, > SmalltalkX, other languages) > Are there been any research papers around comparing these? > > I found the "Pharo on Gemstone VM" talk impressive. The "develop on Pharo > deploy on Gemstone" philosophy seems like a nice synergy for Pharo's > commercial future. So a naive approach would be to do namespaces just like > Gemstone. Maybe its not the best, but would it be "good enough" -- > perfection being the enemy of done and all that jazz. > > cheers -ben > > >> and 2) where they fall on the endless prioritized todo list >> >
