Colin Putney wrote:
> It's stated a bit harshly, but yeah, that sounds basically accurate. The 
> amazing thing is that, in spite of all that, Squeak is still such a 
> wonderful platform to work with. I do use Squeak in production, and 
> there are very few things I would trade it for.

Well, yes, but you can't deny that the guy's got a point. The 
frustration he's expressing is something that everyone has felt over the 
years. And while there are various plain invalid points in his post 
(like the fact that Squeak has bugs - I'm *shocked* to hear that of 
course and would have never started three products if I'd known that ;-) 
the main emerging point is valid: The lack of quality and maintenance. 
The problems he cites are all known, some of them even have fixes but 
there isn't enough traction in the community to make this all come 
together. And of course the forks don't exactly help because we still 
haven't figured out how to share code across the forks and consequently 
we have left numerous folks behind in the last versions (3.7: all those 
people who don't want m17n; 3.8: all those people who don't want traits) 
and absolutely no way (and interest) in re-integrating those forks. And 
as a result, you'll have the effect that Croquet has tons of bugs fixed 
but nobody knows it (because I don't care about peddling the goods). And 
I'm pretty sure the same goes for Sophie or Seaside or OLPC or any other 
serious project.

Leveraging those projects is what Squeak.org today is really, REALLY 
terrible at. But it is where the majority of Squeak production code gets 
written so if you want to get those fixes and enhancements that happen 
in these projects you need to find a ways of integrating them.

Cheers,
   - Andreas