Duane Maxwell wrote:
> 
> >If you're proud of Squeak's usefulness for "serious development", I'd just
> >like to know what sort of serious development you mean.
> 
> As I said, "not very openly".  I have a team of about 10 paid full-time
> Squeakers, most of whom are industry veterans.  I can't recall us requiring
> a checkbox, but I suppose if we need one, we'll spend the 20 minutes to
> write it rather than write off the entire system as being seriously flawed.
> Also, I admit that I'm not trying to meet any sort of "official" standards
> of quality, but rather make something that can reliably used by a large
> number of users.

Exactly the point. It takes a team of 10 full time experienced Squeakers
for X months to make the system useable for business and support it.
Squeak has *immense* value if you can make that kind of commitment. You
can support it indefinitely on your own. You were very lucky (or
deserving :-) to get that level of capital and management support, and
you will succeed because of it.

No one here says the entire Squeak system is flawed. The point most
specifically is that (especially because of Morphic's design) it is
difficult to make shippable apps doing conventional things without a
significant investment of additional work beyond a public download (like
2.7). I'd say, at least four person months would be required. That is
4/10 = 0.4 months for a team your size, or a relatively minor investment
for a several month development effort by such a team.

-Paul Fernhout
Kurtz-Fernhout Software 
=========================================================
Developers of custom software and educational simulations
Creators of the Garden with Insight(TM) garden simulator
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com