What we want with Squeak?

Daniel Vainsencher danielv at netvision.net.il
Tue May 6 13:15:23 UTC 2003


diegogomezdeck at consultar.com wrote:
> > It also require everybody to be active about making
> > their stuff viable and pushing it, correctly.
> I'm trying hard, beleive me! :)
I know, and I am glad for it, now just get used to it - that's what it
takes. Nobody else will magically "take your idea the rest of the way to
realization". That's the point of my other reply to Andreas on this
thread, which seems much less popular to reply to, I wonder why...

> > I care about the media
> > stuff much more than I can about any of the "traditional squeakers"
> > topics you mentioned (cgi..).
> Everybody has a foot in each group but we're not talking about individuals.
> We're talking about goals for Squeak.
Hmm, that wasn't my point, maybe I was too indirect. As I see it, Squeak
is not about MM, or any other specific direction. It is a platform, a
place where people start to work to get towards whatever they want.
Simplicity and understandability is critical for Squeak to be a good
platform.

The Guides work towards making and keeping the platform viable, so
everyone else can pursue whatever goals they want. For us as a community
to choose specifically media, or web stuff, or genetic algorithms, would
miss the point.

Which needs to not clash with the need for a sexy, rich version that
makes people want to start playing with it.

> I remember exactly the problems we had. But your comments remember me the
> human ideas about dinosaurs extinction: –The dinosaurs get  extincted...”
> but they was on the earth much more time than humans.
> 
> The SqC age had a lot of problems but they produce things we still are not
> able to produce.
Of course (see my first reply to Andreas). Again, I was trying to
explain what I believe it takes to keep the platform viable.

> The point is: Can we produce fully multimedia content and web applications
> with the same tool?
Squeak is not a mere tool. It is not a collection of tools, either. It's
a platform. Tools based on Squeak should definitely allow you to do all
those things. That's what SM is for.

> > I think what
> > you're really saying is that the need for a rich loaded Squeak image is
> > also critical, because that's what draws people to play with Squeak in
> > the first place.
> 
> I'm trying to express my feelings: Squeak is better defined as a media-
> producer than as a power-php.
And I'm trying to figure out from those feelings what about reality is
bugging you. Since I don't believe Squeak is merely a better Flash
authoring package, I theorize that what bugs you is the need for
preloaded images. Maybe I'm wrong.

> > Maybe we were wrong to think we can get away with a "lean" release that
> > removes stuff, without addressing the "rich image" concern immidiately,
> > by having official configurations and preloaded images.
> IMHO this is not the problem but the slow progress is.
Ah, in that case, that's simple. Go to the bug fixes archive, look for
some unreviewed code that you think should be in the image, test it,
review it, and bring something read for inclusion to a Harvester. And
yes, be a little patient.

> > This requires
> > moving to working with configurations, and this is a big change that is
> > happening slowly.
> 
> Q: Everybody agree on the politic of small-image with configurations?
> 
> IMHO, We still don't have enough support on squeak to create
> packages/modules/application/parcels/theNameYouWant 
What does opinion have to do with it? I think we have enough to remove a
specific package. If you think otherwise, state what is missing.

> and we're creating much
> more problem with the intent of fragmentation of the image without the
> proper support. On the other side I think there are not yet a clear solution for the
> problem.  
What we are still missing is support for configurations of package, that
let Diego, for example, publish a list of packages, and then anyone can
choose from a menu Diegos configuration, and get an image with all those
loaded. Hey... that sounds like a not very complicated web application.
Instead of the downloading static images and loading them with packages,
a web interface that shows the list of load scripts, and returns you the
image of your dreams, configured.


Daniel



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list