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