What is Squeak? (Was Re: A roadmap for 3.9)
stéphane ducasse
ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Mon Dec 13 07:57:33 UTC 2004
Hi jos
I agree 200%
>> I think that Marcus is dead-on with this comment. People shouldn't
>> be surprised if parts of the system that they contribute get
>> abandoned if they're not there actively promoting and maintaining
>> them. (And I disagree with Andres: Andreas is actively promoting
>> and maintaining his pieces of Squeak, and as an active developer,
>> it's certainly part of that role to critique what others do and
>> encourage what he wants to see.)
>>
>> But I think that Lex's point is also quite valid: What about the
>> newcomers to Squeak? What is their expectation about Squeak, and do
>> we them (and the community) a disservice by not making some effort to
>> meet that expectation? Expectation failure doesn't encourage people
>> to join a community. The important question for the community, then,
>> is to define: What is Squeak? By answering that, we can more
>> effectively promote that definition and encourage the appropriate
>> expectation.
>
> You are speaking of the expectation failure of someone who used 3.6 in
> class, and later downloads 3.7 and finds that Wonderland doesn't work?
> This is a valid point; this we should strive to avoid this.
>
> It's unfortunate that this bug slipped through, especially since it
> was an easy one to forsee and prevent. However, 3.7 had a long
> release cycle, and there was plenty of time for Wonderland users to
> notice this extremely obvious bug before the final version was
> released. Perhaps the SCG folks should have caught this error, but
> since they didn't, someone who cares about Wonderland should have.
>
>> I'm biased here, but I think that one of the ways that people
>> discover Squeak is through the OOPSLA paper by Dan et al. and the
>> White and NuBlue books. We certainly don't want to let EVERYTHING in
>> those publications define Squeak -- that would completely limit the
>> community's ability to change. But I do think that the NuBlue book's
>> title, "Squeak: Open Personal Computing and Multimedia" is a pretty
>> good definition, and one that the other publications agree with.
>> Squeak is about open personal computing and multimedia.
>>
>> That's what concerns me about the current process in Squeak -- it's
>> setting aside the personal computing and multimedia aspects (for now
>> -- I do understand that) in favor of improving the underlying base.
>> I understand that current members of the community consider those
>> "goodies" (such as Wonderland and eToys) to be "hacks," but those
>> "hacks" brought in many people to Squeak.
>
> Very true.
>
>> I do appreciate what Stef and the Berne group have brought to Squeak,
>> and I think that the environment that they propose for 3.9 sounds
>> like an exciting one to work in. But here's my suggestion: It's not
>> Squeak, at least not as it has been defined and communicated in the
>> past. When the base is improved and the personal computing &
>> multimedia "goodies" are ported back (if they are), then it might be
>> Squeak again. But as Marcus points out, that will only happen of the
>> multimedia developers are still around then, and they might not be
>> during the interim -- it's not clear that people interested mostly at
>> the level of the base image are the same kind of people who want to
>> build things like eToys and Wonderland.
>
> You seem to be equating people who are primarily concerned with
> improving the system kernel to people who are interested in developing
> on an improved base system. The former group is probably not
> interested in building multimedia apps. However, many multimedia
> developers (myself included) fall in the latter group. There have
> been many times I've wished for Traits, and had to use a less elegant
> design to fit with in the constraints of a single-inheritance
> hierarchy. And what multimedia developer wouldn't want Squeak running
> on a JIT compiler?
>
>> I make two concrete proposals -- they're alternatives:
>> A. Call the new thing something else. Let "Squeak" end at Version
>> 3.7 or 3.8, unless someone wants to continue it as a tool for
>> personal computing and multimedia. Don't let the expectations of
>> "Squeak" limit where the current community wants to go. Use the new
>> name to attract new attention (maybe get Slashdot to notice?) and to
>> signify a new set of emphases.
>> B. Or, call the 3.9 version "Squeak 4.0," and make it clear that
>> there is no promise of compatibility or multimedia features across
>> the boundary from 3.X->4.0. Say that clearly on the Website, and
>> make the final 3.x version forever available. If people want
>> "personal computing and multimedia," they can download the final 3.x.
>> If they want the coolest open source Smalltalk on the planet, with
>> the base hooks to grow one's own personal computing and multimedia
>> (like the really interesting eToy/Wonderland substitute whose URL
>> Marcus sent around), then let them grab the latest 4.x version.
>
> I understand where you're coming from, but this seems a bit of an
> extreme reaction to a bug in Wonderland that required a 1-line fix (or
> are there other multimedia features of Squeak that are also broken?).
>
> Squeak has the potential to reach many millions, or even billions of
> people, but not if gratuitously forked. If there were deep
> architectural changes that made it difficult to "port" the multimedia
> apps forward, then I might be in favor of either one of your
> proposals. However, it seems that the required fixes are very small
> and easy.
>
>> If a day comes when the "goodies" get folded back in, maybe we can
>> re-merge. But nobody should hold their breath waiting for it. The
>> Georgia Tech group and Andreas' Croquet group can decide which
>> version(s) they want to develop from, and perhaps fork if they want.
>> (FYI, the "Scratch" project at the MIT Media Lab is building on
>> Squeak 2.7 -- the forks are already happening, so we might as well be
>> honest about it and stop battling over the name.)
>
> Noting that forks are already happening is not an argument for further
> forks. As Stephane has repeatedly said, it would have been less work
> to fork off his own version to support his research, but he instead
> wanted to allow the broader community to be able to use the SCG's
> work. Forking is the easier path when you are pursuing a research
> agenda. It takes more effort to integrate the best of everyone's work
> into a single system, but the synergistic effects are potentially far
> greater.
>
>> But by making a clear break with the past, Stef and the Berne group
>> have a freehand to take the base image in the directions that they
>> want, and people who come to Squeak with the "personal computing and
>> multimedia" expectation can make a choice.
>
> Isn't that what the Squeakland image is for? That seems to be where
> much of the development in that area goes on.
>
> Joshua
>
>
>> Mark
>> __________
>> Mark Guzdial : Georgia Tech : College of Computing/GVU
>> Atlanta, GA 30332-0280
>> Collaborative Software Lab, http://coweb.cc.gatech.edu/csl
>> http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~mark.guzdial/
>>
>>
>
>
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|