Killer Application (was: Squeak Foundation)

Diego Gomez Deck DiegoGomezDeck at ConsultAr.com
Sun Jun 9 23:05:27 UTC 2002


Only to clarify, I'm not the person that one that said "I want a windows 
look & feel", I don't like it and I don't want it.

>> > Surprise!  Another newbie arrives to inform us that Squeak is deficient
>> > because it doesn't look like Windows.
>>
>>Surprise!  Another 'expert' thinking that the only true is the own one!
>
>Nowhere did I suggest that.  I simply observe that your observations are 
>commonly seen and often discussed here.

First, I'm not the same person that start the thread.
Second, the way of talking about 'Another newbie' is a problem.

>> > The archives are replete with
>> > these arguments, which have been discussed substantively again and
>> > again.
>>
>>The list is replete with a lot of time wasted in 'expert' discussion.
>
>You miss the point.  My observation is that you offered nothing new to 
>this discussion.

Again, This is my first message in the thread.

>>If we found the same threads in the list again and again, one think is 
>>sure: "Something is not closed"
>
>If you say so.
>
>> > Bottom line: don't like it, fix it.
>>
>>The is half-true... There are a lot of work that is lost because is never 
>>included in the 'official' release.  Not only GUI work.  So the really 
>>nice phrase "fix it", now means "fix it, keep it working with all the 
>>releases, and if you are lucky, the change will be included in official 
>>release"
>
>As noted, this "we don't look like Windows" angst has been expressed by 
>newbies, yet nobody for years has bothered to pick it up as a worthwhile 
>project.  This suggests that the open source economy here does not share 
>your priorities.  Squeak is most certainly amenable to what you 
>describe.  If you think it important, and the general consensus of 
>contributors to be wrong, by all means go ahead and do it yourself.  If 
>you want others to spend their time doing it for you, you should offer 
>more persuasive arguments than the "same old story," which has been for 
>the most part rejected.

Again, I'm not the person that wants windows look & feel.

>> > Many have implemented
>> > various forms of "work-alike"-ism in the past -- including direct GUI
>> > access, and interestingly enough, nobody really used them -- there
>> > simply wasn't the need and demand for it that the newbies anticipated.
>>
>>I agree, but there are a *lot* of other type of work (and some very good) 
>>that is not used too... So, you can said: "If it's not used, it's bad" ? 
>>or (using the reverse) "Java and VB are great because they are very used!"
>
>I am suggesting that the parade of horribles you propose as a consequence 
>of Squeak's "failure" to emulate Windows never happened, and the virtues 
>of providing such services (which existed in the past, but has been 
>discarded) never generated the benefits you propose.  In other words, 
>notwithstanding your arguments, all evidence is to the contrary.
>
>> > The projects ultimately laid fallow after completion and dropped into
>> > the bit bucket.
>>
>>There are a lot of projects (not only GUI) dropped, and some very good!
>
>So, if you deem them wonderful, pick them up and run with them.  Perhaps 
>you will eventually convince someone else who shares your views to join in.

I have no more time to contribute to Squeak (you can see all the things I'm 
doing in the swiki).

>>[snip]
>> > For the record, I don't find Squeak all that idiosyncratic.  And Squeak
>> > hasn't had trouble finding excellent contributors either.
>>
>>And, by now, has no problem losing excellent contributors.
>
>Does it really?  And who are they?

I don't remember the names, but the projects. examples: MorphicWrappers, 
BC, a *lot* of bug fixes, a *lot* of minor improvements, Date & Time 
refactoring ( http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/1871 ), Whisker Browser, 
etc, etc, etc.

>> > In short, I
>> > see no compelling need to make the changes suggested.  But here's the
>> > neat thing -- for those that do, Squeak lets you build it.  Instead of
>> > arguing about it, just do it.
>>
>>You are considering only one part of the reality... I know a lot of 
>>excellent contributor that get tired trying to contribute with Squeak.
>
>Ipse dixit, you must be right.  If I say that I am unpersuaded by the lack 
>of evidence that the absence of windows emulation is the cause (since 
>Squeak at one time had it), perhaps you will provide us with evidence to 
>the contrary?

I never said that the squeak look & feel is the problem.

I said that the contemptuous way of talking about 'newbies', and yours 
arguments are not good.

>> > Otherwise, review the archives and learn
>> > why nobody really is interested in doing what Karl and a zillion others
>> > before him suggest.
>>
>>I think that you must review the list too.
>
>Care to cite a few useful quotes you find impressive, or are you merely 
>going to continue to engage in non-productive gainsay?

Diego




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list