Why aren't these Disney Python jobs for Squeak?

Mats Nygren nygren at sics.se
Fri Sep 22 10:28:54 UTC 2000


"Andrew C. Greenberg" <werdna at mucow.com> wrote:
> [snip]
> The fact that a particular engineer in Disney will not be using 
> Squeak on a particular project means nothing at all.

I would say it means that the particular engineer found Squeak not good
enough for the purpose.

<sideIssure >
if Squeak had the following

1) a module system (new code that is essential, need SqC blessing)
2) extensible objects (existing code in morphic, refactoring needed,
suggested, need SqC blessing)
3) (re)factored compiler (I'm working on that (will need SqC blessing))

A subclass of the compiler could be made that simplifies the syntax of access
for fields in the extension dictionary. (this gets quite close to Python semantics)

With this and some details Squeak could run (most) Python code, show its own code
in Python syntax and still keep all the things Squeak are better at.

Furthermore the Alice scripting system (derived from Python) would fit into
the same framework, and the (Holy) Players system too. It could all be formed
into a coherent and reliable system. Together with some things announced by
SqC and some other work, great things are within reach.

But this will not happen, somehow I know that. And somehow the Disney engineer
knows something of a similar effect.
</sideIssure>

I have been very enthusiastic about Squeak and the Squeak community.

The Squeak project is a promising start. Don't waste it. Some things need to
change, or you will loose even more contributions and contributors.

Paul, a polite and moderate man, are willing to take the risk of using
Squeak for commercial purposes, working out what is needed for that. He's
willing to risk his company money, solve legal problems, write code,
produce an example that can be refered to by others wishing to use
Squeak. 

What's the response from SqC? Nothing. No support whatsoever.

Looking 20 years back, some SqC people has every right to act like souvereigns
in the Squeak community. They invented Smalltalk (but not out of nothing), they
started the Squeak project (but they are no longer alone).

Looking 20 years ahead, they might be wasting a golden opportunity, creating
the best programming environment ever. Technically, legally, socially and in every
respect. I would be proud to be a part of that. It would take *a lot* of work. But
that's ok, I like to work, and working with people who like to work.

My present evaluation of the situation is that I will make a fork and reshape or go
back to other machineries. For my research purposes the present Squeak doesn't
hack it. For teaching I could use Squeak but VisualWorks (or others) are probably better,
since the students could continue to use it professionally later.

I have tried to write about things when what I believe is best or at least good for the
Squeak community was in harmony with what I believe is best/good for myself. Like
most people when that is not possible I will do what is best for myself.

/Mats





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list