Cees De Groot wrote:

>Hi Josh, long time no speak :)
>
>On 10/13/05, Josh Gargus <schwa at fastmail.us> wrote:
>  
>
>>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.
>>    
>>
>
>Apart from the (large) group of Squeaklanders, is there a substantial
>enough group of Squeak users who don't code themselves to warrant
>putting a significant load on the shoulders of a couple of volunteers?
>
>Note that I'm *not* argumentative here, just trying to get lots of pro
>and contra arguments on the table.
>  
>
Put yourself in the boots of a user (only) and try to forget you can 
easily whip something up to update your image or your current non-code 
objects. One of the nicest things about Squeak is that a mere user can 
update it easily. It's one of the coolest features of the system, and 
illustrates in a concrete way, the concern the architects have for 
users. You don't have to go thru the rig-a-ma-role of getting the next 
image, unzipping it, installing it,  etc... Yuck! I'd rather push a 
button. I wish it was more extensive.

I'm not saying that there may not be alternatives. However, we often 
don't view the problem (and in this case it's a solution already there) 
from the users POV. I also think this feature is a good marketing bullet 
to help propagate the usage of Squeak to a much larger audience. Isn't 
that an important topical discussion? (maybe we should start a marketing 
thread.)


brad

-- 
Brad Fuller
(408) 799-6124
** Sonaural Audio Studios **
(408) 799-6123  West San Jose
(408) 799-6124  Cambrian
________________________________
Hear us online: www.Sonaural.com
See me on O'Reilly: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2184



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20051013/db4d2e2c/attachment.htm