[squeak-dev] Re: Edgar from the Ostracism Re: Squeak 4.1 release candidate 2

Edgar J. De Cleene edgardec2005 at gmail.com
Wed Apr 7 10:25:34 UTC 2010

On 4/6/10 2:21 PM, "Josh Gargus" <josh at schwa.ca> wrote:

> I'm looking at the SL3dot11-9579-alpha.image... is this what you mean by
> SqueakCore?  I'll assume so.
> I'm still don't understand what you're trying to achieve, so please help me to
> understand...

The point is have a common ground between forks.
As less packages have , more forks could you build on top.
I think today the small set is Pavel Krivanek PharoKernel.
In fact , I try to understand all work Pavel was doing this years after his
MinimalMorphic which I resurrect for short time.

> We have that already... anything not in trunk needs to be maintained
> externally or die.  Is the issue which packages should be included in Core?
> When I glance at SqueakCore side-by-side with 4.1rc2, they look mostly the
> same.  There are some packages removed (Nebraska, SqueakMap, Tests,
> PreferenceBrowser, ScriptLoader, Etoys, Services, Universes, XML-Parser).

Yes. If you read all I put in swiki this years, all this could now live out
of image.
All possible users of Squeak need all ? NO.
I don't think you need any loader except my modified CodeLoader, but if any
wish SqueakMap could load on top.

Or Pharo people could load Gofer + Metacello.

We want some similar to Linux or not?

> Why remove XML-Parser but add Comanche?
It's only a experiment in course.
I do not think Comanche should be in any Core, this particular one have it
pre-loaded because I have some students and wish easy.
The idea is start SqueakCore from 4.1 using Andreas procedure.
I start from Squeak3.11-9371-alpha and could follow Squeak trunk without

>However, when I look at SqueakCore I don't see the difference that you seem to
think should be obvious.  Can you try to explain yourself more slowly and
clearly, so that I can understand?

Good. You discover SqueakCore and SL3dot11-9579-alpha have the same base
code, what is exact my goal.

Until now, you can't download SqueakCore and load updates and you image
continue SqueakCore.
I sure Andreas could do all I do better and hope he do.

SL3dot11-9579-alpha could update and made .cs.
Also could update the image  using regular .cs in the updates folder , local
or in Experiments .
IMHO this opens the doors for any could do local divergent forks using plain
And share the experiences.

SL3dot11-9579-alpha have a DNU recursive logic which lets download the
'missed' classes from server.
This is the Ladrillos idea of have a Class repository , not a package
repository like we have now.

Also I work a lot with .obj , squeak objects saved on disk and which could
be used in almost all Squeak forks until now.

> Please, what are some concrete examples of how SqueakCore is easier and more
> consistent than 4.1?  Even better would be some general principles that we
> could follow to improve either SqueakCore or 4.1.
> Cheers,
> Josh

So following you, Çuis do not should exist and Pavel Krivanek and Pharo
people was a lot of fools working all years hard on trying to get a smaller,
modular and (in my view) smarter Squeak.
And Craig never should start Squeak 5.0 , Spoon or whatever.
Digression, what was of this ?

What is easier, maintain a 3000 classes base .image or a 300 classes one?
If we do not put hard work, never reach a 300 classes image from where grow
to all happiness .


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list