Whither Squeak?

Klaus D. Witzel klaus.witzel at cobss.com
Fri May 19 08:05:27 UTC 2006

Hi Cees,

on Fri, 19 May 2006 09:43:55 +0200, you <cdegroot at gmail.com> wrote:
> Possible solutions (given in "who is General Failure and what is he
> doing on my drive?" style):
> - Abort. Go back to the SqC model and live with a monolithic image (do
> not scale);

No problem, after doing the next step (explained below).

> - Retry. Declare Spoon to be Squeak 4.0, declare that that is all that
> is going to be "officially" supported for the time being, and refuse
> to support anything additional that doesn't have a proven team backing
> it (scale up).

This is the next step, IMO. Spoon allows to create as many monolithic  
images as are needed and the production process is redoable.

> - Ignore. Keep on following the (distributed) software engineering
> trail, but realize that it may take 5 years before we have a
> modularized, manageable Squeak (scale down).

With (nontrivial) software development it is the same as with hardware  
engineering: if it is never tried out, one can never find out.

It is perhaps desirable to first create a roadmap (with milestones) in  
order to always be able to check with the community whether the next  
action should be abort, retry or ignore. Having such a plan would give the  
community something which often looks as if it where absent: confidence.


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list