>From: "Paul D. Fernhout" <pdfernhout at kurtz-fernhout.com>
>Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers 
>list<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>To: The general-purpose Squeak developers 
>list<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>Subject: Re: Design Principles Behind Smalltalk, Revisited
>Date: Tue, 26 Dec 2006 21:39:30 -0500
>
>Perhaps the biggest single issue is, how do we have a community around new 
>things inspired by Squeak? I brought this issue up many years ago, but was 
>basically shot down in flames of people pushing "Squeak the artifact" not 
>"Squeak the community". Still, it seems like it is community which makes 
>the value in the free and open source world. Yet the Squeak community seems 
>closely tied to Smalltalk-80 and Squeak-as-it-is, in part as a 
>self-selecting process -- yet ironically as Alan Kay himself keeps saying 
>he wants something better.

Well if there is a crowd that wants to keep Squeak tied to the blue book, 
then a fork has to happen.  I don't think it is the case though.  And change 
for change's sake isn't good either.  Smalltalk-80 had a lot of great ideas, 
so care needs to be taken when breaking from the blue-book to ensure we are 
going forward not backward.  Making some change because "well Java works 
that way" would be a very bad idea.  On the other hand, traits was a 
departure, but I think (so far) a good one.

_________________________________________________________________
Fixing up the home? Live Search can help 
http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=WLMTAG