I am standing by Juan's proposal,
do you? (was Re: Removing Etoys, Morphic and other friends)
lecteur at zogotounga.net
Tue Oct 31 18:53:26 UTC 2006
danil osipchuk wrote:
>> to me "code cleanup" does not mean that any functionality is lost.
>> only that the code is cleaned up. maybe I am too simple-minded :)
> How to change the fundament of a building and in the same time to avoid
> removing of upper floors?
I don't know, I'm not into masonry, only computer science.
> To be honest I never had been an etoys user and probably should not jump
> in here. But anyway I wonder: if etoys are already working just fine
> right now (in efficiently forked image) why do they can not be detangled
> from the current squeak-dev image to allow it move forward?
I don't know, I did not implement eToys. I just use it, happily.
>> this is utter nonsense. I just don't understand where we are going
>> here. why destroy Squeak ?
> Another point of view is that blocking any change going to squeak may
> finally repell the majority of creative people from it and kill in a
> different way (by not allowing to create a future). I'm not want to be
> harsh (still not used to English unfortunately) but for me it if squeak
> should die - then let it die: people may move to other projects which
> are lacking support now (including Strongtalk).
well I'm part of the creative people using Squeak. and if it gets
dismantled, I will stop working with it. so your point works the other
way round, too.
More information about the Squeak-dev