From: Michael Neumann Date: 2005-01-15T20:14:31+09:00 Subject: Re: [ANN] Nemo 0.1.0 + Wee 0.4.0 Am Samstag 15 Januar 2005 03:16 schrieb Vincent Foley: > Nice work Michael! I hope to see more of Wee in the future, it looks > really interesting. I have a bunch of questions for you: has Avi > tried Wee? Did he like it? Has he made suggestions? Have you looked > at some Seaside code since the last release (I remember that you didn't > when you made the original implementation)? If you've coded in > Seaside, how would you say developping in Seaside and Wee differs > (Smalltalk environment apart)? Wee would not be Wee without Avi's help. He answered "thousands" of my questions. I first tried to implement it my way, then if I encountered a problem, he guided me into the "right" direction (conceptual-wise). I am not sure he has "physically" tried Wee, but I think he knows much about it, as we talked about it a lot. I've not developed much with Seaside, only once or twice tried some quick examples. I like Smalltalk very much, but Ruby a little bit more ;-) I think Seaside has much greater functionality than Wee. But as the name suggests (Wee = small), I tried to develop a small core, which has the potential (continuations-problem let aside) to grow into something like Seaside, without modifying the core (i.e. everything from now is an "add-on"). Avi's comments on Wee: http://www.ntecs.de/blog/Blog/WeeOnHREF.rdoc > One thing I found interesting the new Wee features is that it can be > used with or without continuations. Is that because Ruby can marshal > continuations and threads like Squeak? If it helps with memory usage > in Ruby, do you know if it possibly could in Squeak? I remember AFAIK, Squeak can marshal threads, continuations and code-blocks. Ruby can't! The problem is not memory usage, but memory leaks in Ruby! And imagine memory grows towards infinity and you can't marshal the objects... terrible! > reading a comment on the Rails weblog where someone mentionned using > Seaside, but there was a memory leak *somewhere* and neither he nor Avi > could figure out where it came from. I'm not qualified to answer this, but I think it's not quite true. > Keep up the good work! Thanks. You're welcome. Regards, Michael