On Jul 6, 2005, at 12:27 AM, Blake wrote:
>>
>> At any rate, you're certainly right that Squeak is not a  
>> "professional desktop development tool".  If you're looking for  
>> one of those (and, I gather, on the Windows platform), try Dolphin.
>>
>
> Well, we were discussing "general acceptance" and, in my case, of  
> what people come and ask of me. It's not a matter of me "looking  
> for a professional desktop development tool". (Personally, I doubt  
> I'd use any Windows-specific Smalltalk.) I will be looking for a  
> replacement environment/tool soon for the abovementioned big app,  
> and I suspect we'll end up using Java. (I'm not excited at the  
> prospect, but it could be much worse.)
>
> And, you know, it's =fine= if Squeak is never meant to be a  
> "professional desktop development tool". If Squeak has a  
> fundamental "failing" it might be that it tends to excite the  
> desire to make it all things to all people. If I can use it to  
> teach kids and experiment with cool things, that's cool.
>
> It's just not "general acceptance".<s>

Teaching kids and experimenting - yes, Squeak's great for that.  It's  
also great, IMNSHO, for doing professional web development - there  
are a few of us around whose companies are built around exactly  
that.  And I suspect that, given a little time, it will also be great  
for doing professional desktop development - Rob's wxSqueak work is  
moving steadily in that direction.  But personally, I don't think  
Squeak (or Smalltalk) ever will be "generally accepted" in the kind  
of sense you mean, and, yes, I'm fine with that.

Avi