how to become modular (was "Contributors Agreement signature
azreal1977 at hotmail.com
Fri Jul 20 14:53:11 UTC 2007
> To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org> From: craig at netjam.org> Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2007 14:41:30 -0700> Subject: re: how to become modular (was "Contributors Agreement signature status?")> > > Hi JJ--> > (Is it just me, or do all your messages come through without> newlines, even in the quoted material?)Rats. I'm using this stupid new MS live thing and I guess it must be sending the mail in HTML format or something even waky'er. I'm still trying to figure out what is causing it. I would just ditch this whole thing but I don't know what all points to this address unfortunately.> > > Just as an observer from the side...> > What's holding you back?Time. My iron is in way too many fires as it is, which is why I am now trying to pay people to take some of the load. :)> That's one way to put it, I suppose. However, I suspect there isn't> an easy definition of what "current Squeak" is after you've done> anything to it, unless your goal is to end up exactly where you started.> Do we really want to end up where we started?Of course we wouldn't, but if what Pavel is doing works we wont be where we started. We will have what we have today with the ability to remove any part of it easily and I think that is quite a benefit.> No, that's not how I see it. There's more involved in the value of> that fruit than the mere fact it hangs low. :) I think the amount of> duplicated work, for results that aren't as useful, makes it something> not worth doing that way (mostly because we are strapped for time and> other resources). Having a short-term-gain mindset at all times will> cause the total effort to be much harder and take much longer. I'm sorry> if this sounds harsh (it sounds harsh to me, you don't need to convince> me of that :). Despite that, I think it's still best to speak plainly here.> > > thanks,> > -CSo long as any argument/discussion is in good faith (i.e. not resorting to ad homein, etc.) then you're not going to offend me. We speak much plainer then this when cash is on the line. :)If it is indeed duplicated then I would certainly see that as a negative. Especially given the time constraints we're all under. But is there a way for him to use the work you have done and end up with a modular Squeak image that resembles what we have now (as is his goal), or is it going to look remarkably like Spoon? :)I certainly hope it doesn't sound like I'm passing judgment on Spoon or looking at it in any negative way. I don't, I read all your Spoon mails with great interest. But it does appear quite different to me then what we have right now, and I'm not sure I'm sold on all the why's and what exactly's. But I do look forward to trying it out and seeing for myself first-hand.
See what you’re getting into…before you go there.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Squeak-dev