On Tue, 05 Jul 2005 19:49:58 -0700, Gary Fisher <gafisher at sprynet.com>  
wrote:

> Why saddle a leading-edge development project like Squeak with the  
> mundane trappings of "just about any" other tool?  That seems like  
> adding a luggage rack and air conditioning to a Formula One car or  
> putting a wet bar and a
> stewardess on the Space Shuttle just to make them seem more familiar.

That's one perspective. Another perspective is that it's like adding doors  
or tires.

Just because something is prosaic doesn't mean it has no value.

> Certainly if anyone really wants to add functions to Squeak they can do  
> so, and if those functions prove useful they could become part of the  
> Squeak
> base, but why tack on a bunch of bric-a-brac just because it's already  
> been done elsewhere?

I don't think anyone was talking about sullying the pure release with  
practical tools. Just pointing out that for an environment that used to  
pride itself on being easy to use, there are plenty of areas where it's  
really not very easy to use.

I'm not sure on what basis you can call Squeak a "leading-edge development  
project" but perhaps we have different definitions.