Squeak Foundation Suggestion
Jochen F. Rick
nadja at cc.gatech.edu
Wed May 2 19:16:00 UTC 2001
It seems to me that the need for a Squeak Foundation version of Squeak is
necessitated by the design style of Squeak.
Right now, Squeak development seems to be concerned with the design of
the large (vision and progress). If it is truelly to be useful and not just
another version of Smalltalk, large changes will need to be made. But,
you can't really get mega change from small improvements. So, you have to
lose backwards compatibility for a hopefully visionary future.
In contrast, what companies and first-time users are most interested in
and critical about concerns the design of the small. Can I count on the
code to work? Are individual methods well commented? Is MPEG support
truelly cross-platform? etc. For these needs, a Squeak foundation version
of Squeak might be necessary.
As, such, I propose calling the Squeak foundation version "SmallSqueak".
It hints at the design-of-the-small methodology. Also, it hints at the
SmallTalk past.
Peace and Luck!
Je77
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|