Squeak V3 (was: Final call for 2.9 updates)

Jesse Welton jwelton at pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu
Fri Jan 26 14:19:46 UTC 2001

Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Jan 2001, Bob Arning wrote:
> > As you know, Dan plans on wrapping up 2.9 next week and issung a
> > 3.0alpha in preparation for putting Squeak on the web in a bigger way.
> I read that as a proposal and there was no positive reply to now.

Yes, this is a bit abrupt.

> IMHO it would do no good to Squeak to jump to a new major version only for
> a condensed sources file. Who needs a sources file on the Web anyway? The
> current 2.8 Squeaklet image does just fine without. Developers like us can
> happily live with a multi-magabyte changes file.

Besides which, consolidating the sources doesn't even save much space.
My 20.4MB changes file condensed down to 11.1MB; with a 5.3MB sources
file, this comes out to 16.4MB.  Condensing sources only brought this
down to a 13.6MB sources file.  Along with a 13MB image, this amounts
to little more than a 10% decrease in overall size from merely
condensing the changes.  Is that worth a major version?

Dan mentioned a couple of reasons for the versioning, one being
"hosting some experiments with enduring content".  Is the key word
there "experiments", or "enduring"?  In the former case, what's the
need for a new version?  In the latter, shouldn't that come *after*
the major changes people have been waiting for?  There would already
be a psychological setback of having to wait for 4.0 (and when would
that be?) to get NCM/whatever, without having to worry about
compatibility with deployed content.  And if we *could* proceed from
3.x to 4.0 without worrying about it, why not proceed from 2.x to 3.0
in the same way?

The other reason he gave was "to help STP with preparing a Squeak
CDROM".  How so?


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list