Jecel Assumpcao Jr <jecel at merlintec.com> wrote:
> On Thursday 08 May 2003 20:53, Anthony Hannan wrote:
> > Stephen Pair <stephen at pairhome.net> wrote:
> > > Well, that's the problem.  We don't have a Squeak that has proper
> > > modules based on a distributed database technology.  I think most
> > > people understand what you're saying and I'm sure everyone will
> > > gladly cast this stuff aside when something better gets
> > > implemented.
> >
> > I'm working on it.  I was hoping some people would join me.
> 
> Unless I missed it in the flood of email in this list, you only asked 
> for feedback but not for help. Considering how even very loud and 
> persistent pleas for people to join projects don't often get results I 
> would say you were a tad optimistic in your hope :-)
> 
> As I wrote in another email, I think something like this should be done 
> in parallel with the current package effort.

I agree. I love GemStone/Magma functionality just like anyone and I love
any attempts to bring modularity on a more advanced level to Squeak.
BUT... We need simple solutions that works NOW too. They are not
exclusive.

And I also don't think that the more advanced solutions will fit
everybody - but that is just a hunch. That was one of the design goals
behind SM - KISS. Only depend on vanilla Squeak for example. Use a
simple technique and a simple model. Make it work. Yaddayadda.

Another very important idea behind SM was that it should cater to all
people. You know - different package formats, different UIs etc. Not
forcing anyone into a new style of working etc. Such things are much
more important than you may think Anthony. Even if you produce a
super-duper-Modules-system (Remember the Ala... I mean 3.3a) it may not
turn out to be popular simply due to people not getting it or not being
able to "live" there.

Good luck Anthony - I hope you get something going! IMHO all efforts in
this direction are worth pursuing and then we will just see what comes
out of it.

regards, Göran