Who is talking about taking anything away?  I know everything I (and at 
least Bill) have been talking about is adding new options.  I would like an 
easy way to package up my application as a stand-alone as an option.  That 
doesn't mean the concept of having everything in the image goes away.  It 
just makes doing one kind of thing easier.

And I also sometimes get the feeling that some may take these talks more 
serious then they are.  Personally I am just expression my vision of what I 
think would be good for Squeak/Smalltalk.  I don't expect anyone will do 
anything about it.  I will just continue to do what I can, based on my own 
priorities, at my own snail-like pace.


>From: Elod Kironsky <kironsky at grisoft.cz>
>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: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:41:40 +0100
>
>I totally agree with Stef here. Squeak is a wonderful thing among 
>programming environments, utilizing exploratory programming in a unique and 
>genial way, so let's not transform it into something less beautiful just to 
>make it used by more people. That has absolutely no sense. Maybe this is a 
>catch 22. If we preserve Squeak as it is now, it will not be used so 
>widely, but if we modify it to be used widely, we loose the essence of 
>Squeak that we love so much and that made us to make it to be used widely 
>(sorry for this messy sentence :-) ).
>
>Elod
>
>Stéphane Rollandin wrote:
>>Bill Schwab wrote:
>>>Stef,
>>>
>>>You seem to be making my point w/o realizing it.  There is indeed no need 
>>>for struggle (with our would-be users),
>>
>>of course this is not the struggle I am talking about.
>>
>>I'm talking about struggling to be popular. I just don't see the point. 
>>But this is only personal, and I understand a lot of people want to make 
>>it easier to do business with Squeak (that's what you call "realizing it's 
>>potential" I guess); so let it be if enough developers are motivated. I am 
>>not.
>>
>>what I am interested into is keeping the true power of Squeak intact, and 
>>have it grow. to me its potential is already realized (realized as 
>>potential so to speak). if most "would-be users" don't see this power, too 
>>bad for them. that's what I call elitism: people have to deserve a 
>>profound and intelligent software such as Squeak by understanding its true 
>>nature (and certainly there is a lot we could do to help them climb the 
>>learning curve). this is true of any worthy art or science: you have to 
>>study to master it.
>>
>>now if Squeak is to become the next big thing that's fine. I certainly do 
>>not "combat every attempt to provide OPTIONAL behavior" as you said (how 
>>did you come to believe this ?).
>>
>>what I'm saying is that maintaining and improving Squeak is already a 
>>demanding task (actually just understanding it is already something :). 
>>this requires work, intelligence and creativity, plus there are risks: 
>>Squeak being a kind of living thing can become sick, it can also die. so 
>>we need to take care of it. to me the rest is secondary.
>>
>>
>>well this is just my opinion. I have no idea how many people would 
>>agree...
>>
>>
>>regards,
>>
>>Stef
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

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