Removing Etoys (was Re: A process proposal for 3.10)
azreal1977 at hotmail.com
Wed Oct 25 20:08:37 UTC 2006
>From: jvuletich at dc.uba.ar
>Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
>list<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>To: Ron at USMedRec.com, "The general-purpose Squeak developers
>list"<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>Subject: RE: Removing Etoys (was Re: A process proposal for 3.10)
>Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:43:09 -0300 (ART)
>You seem to believe there are people around who are wishing to implement
>stuff just because others want it, not because of their own interest.
>Well, I'm pretty sure there's none.
That's not true. I am working on RecurranceRule's right now. I had the
part I needed weeks ago, but I ditched it to try and get a more complete
solution (which I will likely never use myself) so others will have it. And
when I get done with this, and the project that spawned it, I will look at
what is on the "hit list" that I could do easily (best to get the low
hanging fruit first).
I'm leaning toward a RoR type (but better I hope) implimentation in Seaside,
because I think that would draw more people.
So the truth is, you are right: I plan on doing this for my own interest.
My own interest in this system getting popular so we have more bodies to
write code. Imagine where we would be with one third the people who are
working on Java right now.
I'm only one person (with very little free time), but I don't think I'm
alone in my thinking.
Get FREE company branded e-mail accounts and business Web site from
Microsoft Office Live
More information about the Squeak-dev