On Wed, 07 May 2003 04:06:20 +0200 Daniel Vainsencher <danielv at netvision.net.il> wrote:
>Assuming I understood correctly, I join Cees in expressing curiousity
>about what you think about the current trends, and specifically what
>makes you unhappy about splitting it into packages. If specific effects
>bug you, maybe they can be dealt with better.

My dislike for the packagizing effort stems from:
- it has a _very_ low signal-to-noise ratio
- it does not solve any problem that I face now or forsee facing in the near future
- I think that it will reduce the shared experience that has contributed to the growth of Squeak to this point

>What I certainly don't want is to go on my merry way and get told "but
>we didn't want this" a year down the road.

You will not hear "but we didn't want this" from me since I speak only for myself. What I will say now is that the packagizing of Squeak is of zero interest to me personally and I suspect it will diminish the synergy that was so enjoyable in the old Squeak.

Cheers,
Bob

>Daniel
>
>Bob Arning <arning at charm.net> wrote:
>> On 07 May 2003 00:04:18 +0200 Cees de Groot <cg at cdegroot.com> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 2003-05-06 at 14:04, Bob Arning wrote:
>> >> The short answer is no, not everybody shares the enthusiasm for that goal..
>> >>
>> >Ok, then I'm going to request the long answer ;-). 
>> >
>> >Enthusiasm is not necessary, but it *is* the only feasible way to make
>> >sure Squeak works for everybody, not?
>> 
>> Well, first, does the "it" in "it *is* the only feasible way" refer to enthusiasm or to the (not quoted above) "politic of small-image with configurations"? 
>> 
>> In any event, I'm not sure Squeak can work for everybody, depending on your interpretation of "work". Any particular change will probably make some people more happy and others less so. What sort of calculus one applies to sum up these pluses and minuses is, I think, entirely subjective. I'm one of those who sums it up for the present trends and arrives at a negative number. Maybe I'm alone in that regard, maybe not, but that's what prompted me to reply to Diego's inquiry. 
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Bob