The cadence of Software Engineering.

David van Coevorden dvancoevorden at hotmail.com
Mon Dec 21 13:47:02 UTC 1998


Bill, 
Could you give me a reference to Dan Ingalls note about the Squeak 2.3 
timeline. I´m very interested in this discussion.

BTW, what did you mean by conventional software engineering? Does 
conventional include object-oriented development in languages "less 
elegant", such as C++?

Regards,
David 


>Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1998 15:56:46 -0500 (EST)
>From: Bill Cattey <wdc at MIT.EDU>
>To: squeak at cs.uiuc.edu
>Subject: The cadence of Software Engineering.
>Reply-To: squeak at cs.uiuc.edu
>
>Although I have been aware of Smalltalk for a very long time, (I
>mentioned it in my Undergraduate Thesis in 1983) I've not been at all
>serious in my study of it until I learned about Squeak this past
>October.  For the past 15 years, I'd been doing what I'll call
>'conventional' software engineering -- taking on multi-month and multi
>year projets to get something done.
>
>Reading Dan Ingalls note about the Squeak 2.3 timeline, I suddenly 
found
>myself in a universe with a VERY different sense of how long things 
take
>to do.  As I've chatted with Squeakers over the past couple months, I
>understood that my sense of what to do when and how long it took was
>different, but it seems that it's much more different than I imagined.
>
>Let's take a moment to savor how Squeak is changing how we think about
>what is possible.
>
>-wdc
>


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list