On Friday, April 20, 2001, at 09:43 AM, Paul Fernhout wrote:

> "Andrew C. Greenberg" wrote:
>
>> The presumption that a fork is necessary is ludicrous in fact, for all
>> the reasons previously stated.
>
> It's happening (despite nobody wanting it to have to had to have
> happened). "Stable Squeak" is the result and is about to be released,
> according to reports on this list. Whether it takes off is still an
> issue, but there are numerous people who want something like it for
> production work.

Its existence, if that occurs, doesn't address the question whether it 
is or was necessary.  In the fullness of time, we shall see whether 
"Stable Squeak" is the panacea its advocates promise, or whether its 
just another hunk of code.

> The issues of why it had to happen have been outlined in numerous emails
> on this list.

And their validity was likewise addressed.  By referring to "reasons 
previously stated," I refuse to re-engage in an already ridiculously 
overhashed issue.

>
> The Economist (which has recently noticed "open source")
>   http://www.economist.com/surveys/displayStory.cfm?story_id=568269
> writes:
>   "To be successful, open-source software must also be designed in a
> modular way so that groups of programmers can work independently on
> different components.

Reasonable people might consider this proposition to be false in fact.  
Modularity is clearly a useful feature, but an essential one?  Many 
people reasonably consider Squeak to be at least moderately successful 
open source software.  That would make Squeak at least one 
counterexample.  There are many others.  What is more, there is a 
fundamental difference between the subject of a piece being written in a 
modular fashion, and the result being a modular programming language.  
Paul seems to be conflating those issues as well.

> The only way to stop the fork is for SqueakC to make modularity a top
> priority ASAP (ideally built from textual source).

Nobody can stop someone who wants to write a fork.  Clearly noone can 
stop Paul from threatening one.

The only issue is whether the exercise is detrimental to Squeak and its 
community.  The gurus of open source have uniformly posited that there 
should be a compelling reason for one.  Perhaps reasonable people might 
differ on this point, but I still believe that it is ludicrous to 
suggest that any major departure from the existing model is necessary.  
Modularity projects may be proposed, implemented and distributed in 
Squeak through the "ordinary course."

While I appreciate the gentle collegiality of this forum, this "debate" 
has reverted to pabulum repetition of mantras.  I see no substance to 
these arguments.   What I am seeing are screenfulls and screenfulls of 
ego.  Repeating conclusions and positing threats proves nothing.  
Hopefully, in due course, we can soon see a more substantive discussion.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 2999 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20010420/14c63cc1/attachment.bin