Modular Squeak / Update Streams (Re: Smalltalk & Squeakfeatured on Slashdot)

Dan Ingalls Dan.Ingalls at disney.com
Mon Apr 23 04:25:15 UTC 2001


>Les writes:
>> When SqueakC announced that they were going to tackle this problem, I 
>> immediately signed up on the
>> above Swiki pages.  I made my plans clear, and provided pointers to the 
>> Wiki sites where I have been
>> describing my work in full public view for over 4 years.  I have heard 
>> NOTHING, not even so much as
>> a how-do-you-do, from ANYONE.  This is not what I expected when I went 
>> to the trouble to sign up on
>> those pages, and expose my works in progress to public scrutiny where 
>> my thoughts and ideas were
>> free for the taking.

Andrew replied:
>As between SqC's and the Oasis' project's productivity, measured in 
>terms of published code, I think it is apparent who has contributed more 
>to the Squeak community at this point in time.  If there is more to 
>Oasis than a few precatory remarks about a project that might someday 
>be, I was not able to glean it from the website.  Meanwhile, SqC hit 
>virtually every one of their marks on their modularity projects.  It is 
>one thing to shout to the world what you are doing, and how your are 
>intending to do it -- and another to show that you are doing it by 
>sharing your code.  If you want a how-do-you-do, post a changeset or two.

... plus more from both snipped ...

Folks -

This is an issue that I'm smack in the middle of, and I'd like to cool the flames here, and also maybe take it up a level...

* Thank you Andrew for credit to our productivity.  At the same time I can tell you that, whatever its merits, the environments project is not complete and does not yet answer the modularity needs that others have rightly articulated.

*  I have seen Les's work on OASIS last year at OOPSLA, and it appears to be quite thorough (and we have seen and benefitted from other careful work from him as well in the past).

*  I can understand Les's frustration with the adoption process at SqC.  Sometimes we track and incorporate a lot of external work, and sometimes our doors are closed for long periods of time.  This is a problem for any truly (ie import as well as export) open source process.

*  There is clearly a need to improve to the Squeak open source process as seen from the larger community (beyond just saying "Hey it's open -- do your thing.").

*  It is encouraging to see such work as the Stable Squeak effort actually reaching a presentable state, and also to see such active discussion on the topic of a Squeak Foundation.

*  If this whole chaotic foment doesn't self-organize first, we'll try to make a couple of proposals next week (this week is already trashed) in the direction of how to improve the match between the Squeak Central process and the needs and enthusiasms of the rest of the community, especially vis-a-vis Stable Squeak and a Squeak Foundation.

	- Dan






More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list