things lacking in Squeak

Bijan Parsia bparsia at email.unc.edu
Wed Dec 17 04:39:44 UTC 2003


On Tue, 16 Dec 2003 Laurence.Rozier at knowledgearchitects.net wrote:

> Folks,
>
> I think that having a TextEdit or WordPad like editor in Squeak would
> bring numerous benefits not only to the core Squeak programming
> community, but to others currently under-utilizing Squeak or not using
> it at all. It would immediately make BookMorphs an order of magnitude
> more useable by non-programmers and scripting types. If there is ever
> going to be a market where Squeak-based solutions have significant
> economic value, script-oriented developers will almost certainly play a
> major role and they will need interoperability with formatted text.
[snip]

Oy. Let me just air Ye Olde Pet Peeve: These sorts of arguments irritate
certain of us. RTF support is pretty clearly neither necessary and
especially not sufficent to the "broader success" of Squeak, and many of
us are reasonably not strongly motivated by the demands of "broader
success".

If you'd like RTF support, and don't want to, well, do the work (and I
empathize, I love people imporving Squeak without my assitence :)), I
really do suggest holding off promising fame or fortune unless you intend
to supply some of the latter. It's just rather crass otherwise, IMHO.

Cheers,
Bijan Parsia.




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list