updates vs. images -- limiting squeak to code
andrew at smallthought.com
Thu Oct 13 17:03:23 UTC 2005
OK, so there certainly seem to be some people in favor of keeping the update
stream, and that's fine, but is it necessary to tie update stream
maintenance to the bleeding edge of the code, by having the same people
building the images be responsible for the update stream as well? Could
there not be a workflow where new images get built and released all the
time, presumably quicker since there would be less work involved, and where
*somebody else* would take on the role of 'update stream maintainer', coming
up with an update stream based on the released images? Since there seems to
be support for keeping the update stream, one would hope there'd be some
volunteers for that task..
On 10/13/05, Brad Fuller <brad at sonaural.com> wrote:
> Cees De Groot wrote:
> Hi Josh, long time no speak :)
> On 10/13/05, Josh Gargus <schwa at fastmail.us> <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 Fuller
> (408) 799-6124
> ** Sonaural Audio Studios **
> (408) 799-6123 West San Jose
> (408) 799-6124 Cambrian
> Hear us online: www.Sonaural.com <http://www.Sonaural.com>
> See me on O'Reilly: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/2184
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Squeak-dev