[RANT] Come on people! ;)
lecteur at zogotounga.net
Thu Dec 16 17:44:33 UTC 2004
goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
> The illusion that Squeak is moving fast is also due to all the cool
> packages that are moving fast - but those are built on top of Squeak and
> aren't causing things to break.
what I call Squeak includes a lot of packages. my own application builds
on top of a large code base.
> So... it is not that people don't have the time to "keep up" - the fact
> is rather that we are dragging along a lot of "dead code". Code that has
> *no* active maintainer. Nor very many users.
this may very well be your impression. for example to me wonderland is
not dead code, and I use it: I developed a 3D game with it that is not
finished yet and that I left aside for one year, being busy with
something else. I definitely intend to finish it, but I don't know when,
as I'm a slow programmer :)
>>we may have a real problem here
>>if there is not some sort of centralized direction for Squeak
>>development, or at least common goals and strong guidelines.
> I strongly disagree with the analysis.
> What we DO need though is better structure and better tools.
... "common goals"
> see who is doing what and how things affect each other. Better ways of
> communicating and codeveloping. etc
... "strong guidelines"
so apart for vocabulary, where do you disagree with me ?
now let me state that the ideas I expressed in my previous post are not
theoretical: I speak from experience. Squeak has been my main
development environment for several years now, along with Emacs, and
there is definitely this feeling I get with Squeak that things can
change under my feet at any time that I do not have at all with Emacs.
it's very, very uncomfortable. one may wonder if the system is
reliable: don't you think this is a worthwhile concern ?
More information about the Squeak-dev