Improving the aesthetics and usability of Squeak
Roger Vossler
rvossler at qwest.net
Tue Jul 9 20:18:03 UTC 2002
Hi Gang,
I certainly agree with Andreas' comment. Moreover, I would expect this
proposal
to consist of a well-designed architecture for a new Squeak based upon
modules,
a good design for implementing that architecture, and a mapping from the
existing, highly-integrated Squeak architecture to the new module-based
architecture. The necessary steps would include a solid engineering plan
in
terms of cost, schedule, and budget for accomplishing this. So far, I
have read
a lot of discussion, plus a lot of smoke and thunder, but have not see a
good
architecture, design, or engineering plan.
While "modularity" certainly seems like a Good Thing, what problem are we
really trying to solve? More later.
Cheers, Roger.....
On Monday, July 8, 2002, at 05:17 PM, Steven Swerling wrote:
> Andreas Raab wrote:
>> Peter,
>>> If anyone else feels I should shut up, I will. But as long as it's
>>> just you, I'll continue offering (what I believe to be) constructive
>>> criticism.
>> Please go on. I've been reading this thread with a lot of interest. The
>> only two things I am missing is a) some proposal of how the problem can
>> be solved and b) the necessary steps (and comittment) to get there.
>> Cheers,
>> - Andreas
>
> Getting modules nailed down seems like a very reasonable initial step,
> as Alan Kay noted earlier in the thread. That will help give some space
> to all the furry little mammals to play in the same world as the big
> dinosaurs without getting trampled, as it were.
[snip]
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|