On Aug 23, 2006, at 5:36 PM, tim Rowledge wrote:

> I'm not sure I understand this obsession with syntax for scripting.  
> Why on earth does it need to be human readable?
>
> We have quite good tools for writing Smalltalk.
> We can store the appropriate script/package/incantation in some form.
> We can read it into a 'script runner' image.
> Done.
>
> Who cares if it looks like
> System addMethodNamed:'raspberryTea' toClass:'Fooble'  
> withContents:'^42'
> or
> abd45be89f20d0562dacf
>  when examined in a text editor? Text editors are *so* last century.

Do we want to attract the people of the last century to Squeak?

"Marthin Luther was one of the first great User Interface Designers.  
He said: 'The first thing I have to do in user interface design is to  
start with where the user is.'"
   Alan Kay in http://interactive.colum.edu/partners/squeakfest/2005/ 
mp3/AlanKay_SqueakFest05_part5_of_6_reasoning_thinking.mp3

- Looking at the license situation right now, hoping for a pre- 
installed fully fledged morphic Squeak on Apples etc. is futile
- If we have a Squeak VM and small headless image installed per  
default on the next versions of OS-X / Suse / Ubuntu / $100 laptop  
etc, we grab more of those old-fashioned "script-kiddies" - if they  
can somehow understand the Squeak-Skripts in their emacs / vims etc.
- Having more visibility for Squeak
	- increases the chances for us to at least join the competition for  
a better Etoys
	- helps us Squeaker in the job market /  Academia
- Besides it would force us to come up with a more decent packaging  
system

Markus
--
...cetero censeo that the current Squeak VM's should be relicensed to  
APSL2.