The real question is: how much is usable Strong Talk?
I have read some notes on the site and for the meantime is not GCC-compatible.
I fear the code is written in a quite old C++ dialect and not portable to Unix.
So I think Exupery is a stronger option at least for the next year.
What is the Exupery state of the art? How can be used?
We can compile some methods or images?
;)
On 9/19/06,
[hidden email] <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> Hi!
>
> "Ron Teitelbaum" <
[hidden email]> wrote:
> > I don't see any of this in terms of either/or. While it is true that some
>
> I don't either. :)
>
> > effort may be diverted by working with Strongtalk to develop a Squeak VM it
> > doesn't mean that it will derail all other efforts.
>
> I actually did not mean that either. :)
>
> In fact - I just wanted to present my 2 öre about why Exupery probably
> is much more interesting (to me as a Squeaker) than Strongtalk, despite
> the current "buzz" about Strongtalk on squeak-dev. I think Exupery is
> underestimated in general.
>
> But I am an OSS fan and to each his own etc - just keep scratching all
> those itches. Remember that in the end it doesn't really matter much
> what "we decide" - because that is not how it works. The only thing that
> matters is what each individual developer decides to do. I would hardly
> think any of us will dig into Strongtalk code just because someone said
> on squeak-dev that it would be "good" for Squeak. :)
>
> And the same goes for any other effort of course. In short - have fun,
> whichever way you like - and things will work out for the best. :)
>
> regards, Göran
>
>
--
Software Architect
http://www.objectsroot.com/Software is nothing
Locked
