>From: Brad Fuller <brad at bradfuller.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: Making Squeak more accessible and used - reversing the trend
>Date: Sat, 03 Feb 2007 18:09:16 -0800
>
>Why would one want to continue to perpetuate the development of vertical 
>applications - of which it is difficult to communicate between (except w/o 
>even more vertical methods of communicating)?

Because we want to lower the cost of entry into smalltalk without losing any 
of the power.  Of course, if we deploy 3 or 4 different native apps they 
wouldn't be able to talk to each other via normal message sends, but on the 
other hand it will be trivial for them to talk over the network which lets 
them take advantage of the dual cores.

At this point, it isn't clear whether the implicit threading of Concurrent 
Haskell, Transactional memory, or the 0 sharing/message passing of Erlang is 
going to win out as the strategy for multi-threading.  If it happens to be 
the Erlang solution, then Squeak isn't so far behind actually but we will 
need to expand on this "vertical methods of communicating".

>I  see only one advantage of developing OS-native apps in Squeak and that's 
>Smalltalk's prototyping ability. A capability that you can also get with 
>other languages. Unfortunately, the user misses the true power of the 
>Smalltalk environment.

Yes, they miss the complete true power of Smalltalk.  But right now they are 
missing *all* of the power.  It seems to me that people don't come look at 
your world until you beat them in their own.

_________________________________________________________________
Talk now to your Hotmail contacts with Windows Live Messenger. 
http://get.live.com/messenger/overview