What we want with Squeak?
danielv at netvision.net.il
Tue May 6 18:25:42 UTC 2003
Yup, some of the people in this discussion are aware of and to various
degrees buy into XP. However, the assumptions of XP are pretty stretched
by the realities. I think Eric S Raymonds "The cathedral and the bazaar"
and related papers are more relevant.
Anthony Adachi <adachipro at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> > What concerns me, and motivated me to start pushing
> in certain
> > directions, is that Squeak's direction had ignored
> some "economic
> > principles" of software development, and as a
> result, really was dying.
> It sounds like to me that it would help Squeak
> considerably if it was developed the Extreme
> Programming way (especially the core system). i.e.-
> Face to Face communication, Pair programming, Test
> First Development, on site customer (person(s) acting
> in the capacity of) , ect..
> Stephane Ducasse wrote:
> > PS: if we could get money for two persons full time
> improving Squeak
> > this would solve a lot of problems.
> Yes, at least two full time programmers. Or two
> part-time programmers who can arrange to work at the
> same time in the same place. So they can, at a
> minimum, practice pair programming.
> >I'm really wondering how we could make this happens.
> Squeak has had a significant involvement in Education,
> has it not? Isn't there grants (government, corporate,
> or private) which can be applied/lobbied for Squeak?
> The Refactoring Browser was developed at a University
> under the guidance of a professor was it not? Could
> something similar be done with Squeak?
> Failing that, Squeak developers who are geographically
> located near each other could pair on a voluntary
> In the event, were it's not possible to be in the same
> room during the development process, ways to
> effectively communicate still need to be found.
> > If you tolerate this (cruft) then your children
> will be next
> > Even now, the image, from a software engineering
> perspective, is a mess.
> > Object (The Base Object) indirectly depends on well
> over half the
> > classes in the system.
> Dedication to Test Driven Development would help
> considerably to resolve and avoid this situation.
> Moreover, XP puts a very strong emphasis on
> communication, especially face to face communication.
> A core group of people who are able to meet, plan, and
> program in the same room using XP would go a long way
> to resolving this cruft.
> Diego Gomez Deck wrote:
> > we have pages and pages describing a process (the
> harvesting process) that
> > don't work. The bureaucracy is killing us. The
> steps to get a fix
> > approved are, in most of the cases, more difficult
> and time consumer than
> > the fix itself. We have lists of people with roles
> (guides, harvesters,
> > etc) but in the reality only a few of them are
> active and working.
> > These are pressures we simply have to respond to in
> order to keep Squeak
> > alive and changing. This is what interests me.
> Someone or some persons playing the role of the on
> site "customer" could make it easier to resolve the
> decision turn around time issues.
> XP's practices were created in order to enable agility
> and change. i.e.- "Embrace Change".
> Just a thought,
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
More information about the Squeak-dev