> Diego makes an interesting point about there being multiple
> groups within the overall Squeak community, each pulling
> the language in a different direction.

Please remember that there is (also) a "little group" that
 consider that Smalltalk is not a language ;-)
( we know that it is an environment,
  an open ambient constrained to evolution
  and not only to changes as languages).
Probably each of us can't enumerate all the groups
 co-laborating in our community.

Also, we must consider that time is different
 for an individual that for the goup.
 (the duration of a second depends on the
  side of the [bathroom]door you are :-)

Relax and do Squeak for fun.
Squeak is an Smalltalk and it will not dissapear
 without changing our minds.
Languages are replaced by new languages,
 ambients evolve.

Ale.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry White" <ljw1001 at hotmail.com>
To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 4:00 PM
Subject: Re: What we want with Squeak?


> Diego makes an interesting point about there being multiple groups within
the overall Squeak community, each pulling the language in a different
direction.
>
> A possible solution to this is to organize 'families of functionality' as
separate projects in the same way that the Apache Jakarta work supports
developers building Web-centric Java applications by providing a central
source for (among other things): the tomcat web server, the struts web
application framework, a mail server, xml processing, test utilities, etc.
These things have become semi-official parts of the java development world
without being part of Sun's official Java (except for the XML stuff, which
is repackaged).   The project provides not just a set of tools but also
confidence - that the projects are active, the tools have a certain quality
and that, to some degree at least, they work together.  This 'branding'
effect is very important.
>
> The benefits of this are several:  First, the basic image can remain small
without preventing access to useful tools.  Second, the time-consuming
process of blessing image changes can be avoided.  Third, those 'families'
that meet real user needs will thrive while others can fill smaller niches,
or fade away entirely - without having to remove them from the image later.
Finally, if  the tools prove valuable to mainstream developers, they can
always be rolled into to the image later.
>
> There's enough existing software to form the basis of a 'traditional'
development family - Comanche, Seaside, some of the database tools,
SOAPOpera, XML-RPC, etc. Whether or not their developers would want to work
this way is the real question.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Hi,
>
> I think we're really near to find *the* source of all these discussion we
> have periodically since SqC leaves Disney.
>
> What we want with Squeak? Clearly there are 2 groups:
>
>   - The "Media-Squeakers" (in Andreas's words)
>   - The "Traditional-Squeaker" (in my words)
>
> I'll try to explain creating radicalized descriptions of these groups:
>
> The Media-Squeakers believes in Squeak as the most promising incarnation
of
> the Dynabook concept. These guys want TTF in the Image, Sound, Midi, PDF
> support, SVG readers/writers, Improved Look&Feel, Video support, etc and
> they are able to accept a big core image.
>
> The Traditional-Squeakers are more interested in "normal" development with
> Squeak and they are interested in SOAP, Relational DB Access, CORBA, CVS
> support, cgi-type web servers, native-widgets, etc.  These guys want a
> really small core image with nothing more than stdio support.
>
> If we don't agree with the goals difficulty we'll agree on methods.
>
> We have to decide what we want with Squeak and accept that, probably, the
> goals of these groups are not the same.  Personally I think we have not
> enough resources to try to get all the goals of both groups.
>
> In the SqC age the Media-Group was in charge and Squeak has excellent
> multimedia capabilities and absolute no support for "traditional"
> development.   In the Guides-Age these goals, imho, are not so clear.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Diego
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
> Add photos to your messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
>


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


>
>