On Oct 13, 2005, at 4:54 AM, Cees De Groot wrote:

> On 10/13/05, Michal <michal-list at auf.net> wrote:
>
>> So de facto, if you kill smooth upgrades (which is what we are  
>> talking
>> about), you come close to killing the use of squeak for non-code
>> objects.
>>
>
> Yup. But in the spirit of scratch-your-own-itch, if you want smooth
> transfer of non-code between images, please write some code when that
> happens so you're not impacted too much (something that helps organize
> objects between projects would probably go a long way)...
>

Come on now, (I believe that) it is those Squeak users who have the  
most non-code objects (eg: those using it as an expressive medium,  
not a programming environment) who are least likely to be able to  
write such code.  If you and/or the community want to say "Screw  
those people", then fine.  Just be explicit about it, and don't place  
all of the responsibility for it upon those being screwed.

Respectfully,
Josh

> One of the issues that is really hurting us at the moment is that
> we're trying to be everything for everyone, maybe that should stop. It
> will hurt a bit at the beginning, but at the end of the day should
> allow for a more decentralized model as people collect what they want,
> compose their work environments from it, etcetera.
>
>