On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:36 PM, tim Rowledge tim@rowledge.org wrote:At the latest board meeting we got to discussing the relative quietness of the squeak list(s) recently. We were wondering what you folks out there are doing with Squeak, what you'd like to be able to use it for, the things that you think would be important to improve it for wider use and so on.

Please, whether you're a frequent user or an occasional look-at-the-list type, take a moment to let us know your opinions.

What do you use Squeak for? On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 3:36 PM, tim Rowledge tim@rowledge.org wrote:At the latest board meeting we got to discussing the relative quietness of the squeak list(s) recently. We were wondering what you folks out there are doing with Squeak, what you'd like to be able to use it for, the things that you think would be important to improve it for wider use and so on.

Please, whether you're a frequent user or an occasional look-at-the-list type, take a moment to let us know your opinions.

What do you use Squeak for? I have been using Smalltalk since the late 1980s, originally Smalltalk V286 and have moved through later versions. I use it for modelling populations of neurons with a selected degree of physiological plausibility, organized into networks corresponding with cortex, hippocampus, thalamus, basal ganglia etc. with a selected degree of anatomical plausibility.My key reason for using Smalltalk is that it is comparatively easy to make changes to the architecture of the neuron network. As a comparison, a number of years ago a graduate student ported the system into C++. The ported system ran a bit faster, but any time there was a need to make a change, it took much longer (typically a couple of weeks compared with half an hour with Smalltalk).I don't make much use of morphic etc. I collect numerical data from network simulations to assess learning effectiveness. I stay on the Squeak list to have an idea of what is going on, and occasionally to get help with a problem. Andrew Coward