I've written a Squeak tutorial that can be found at
http://wilkesjoiner.com/UsingSqueak.html. It is aimed at someone with
programming experience who wants to get up and running in Squeak in a
short amount of time.  I've tried it out on some coworkers, and it
took them from 1/2 hour to an hour to go through it.  Any feedback
would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Wilkes
wilkesjoiner at gmail

On 11/24/05, j <thej at shaw.ca> wrote:
> Count me in on the documentation effort. I'm an ideal "Squeak
> Newbee" (aka  Sucker for Punishment ;-) to bounce tutorials and
> questions off of.
>
>  From my perspective:
>
> -The Squeak environment was the first point of confusion when I
> started to investigate it.
> It is very different from a conventional environment in it's
> interaction and organization. Existing documentation for this is OK.
> However, I would like to see (..and will help build) a tutorial /
> cookbook on how to manage projects, filing in/out and other
> environment basics as such. I think a Cookbook / FAQ style would be
> best for teaching how to use specifics of the environment and
> especially Widgets.
>
> -Following closely to my first point is exploring Squeak. I have yet
> to find a "complete" description of how to use a code browser; it's
> capabilities and what these capabilities allow the user/coder to do.
>
> -The Smalltalk language is without a doubt the best documented aspect
> of Squeak. Unfortunately, it is also the simplest aspect of Squeak.
>
> -After the Smalltalk language, I believe that the base objects should
> be taught. I have read opinions that state you don't need to know the
> "lower levels" of Squeak to start using it. Statements that say you
> can work at a higher level..but how can anyone do anything in
> Smalltalk/Squeak if they don't have a clue what is in the base
> classes and how to put them to use !!! I haven't found ANY
> documentation worth spit that 'introduces' the base classes. Teaching
> the base classes really needs to be a focus for any Squeak
> documentation effort. A BIG plus about the base classes is that they
> are not the 'moving target' that the rest of Squeak can sometimes be.
> They are mature and don't change much (right ?!!?)
>
>
> One of my first efforts with Squeak was to learn eToys. I found the
> documentation at the time so spotty and incomplete that I wrote my
> own introduction:
> eToys
> http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3626
>
>
> Jason Hogue
>
> On 23-Nov-05, at 4:45 PM, Blake wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 11:52:20 -0800, Jason B Burke
> > <jason.b.burke at Abbott.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> I'd be happy to give you my perspective on this. The first language I
> >> learned was
> >> Basic (it was a sad start, but the only free option on the Apple ]
> >> [ =).
> >>
> >
> > Compadre!
> >
> >
> >> I believe that the main issues is the documentation.
> >>
> >
> > One of the main issues, no question. The other main issue, IMO, is
> > that Squeak, in particular, is a moving target. Code rots faster
> > than it is replaced. That's why with, for example, Stephane's bot
> > book, he made his own simple context for learning.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>