On Apr 7, 2008, at 5:15 PM, David J. Goehrig wrote:
> When you build a project on top of Squeak, it is common practice to  
> assume that Squeak is a layer of irreducible complexity, on top of  
> which you are adding more complexity.  Design decisions within that  
> body of code, determine the applicability of every design decision  
> you make about your actual application.  And as soon as you are  
> attempting to do something that is non-trivial for Squeak, you find  
> yourself in a strange sea where dragons lurk behind every wave.

(snip)

> A newcomer to Squeak looks at the incomprehensible class listings  
> and asks herself "Do I really need this particular piece of junk",  
> looks for an answer to "Why is this here", and is frustrated  
> because often the answer to those questions has been forgotten (or  
> is only held in someone else's head).  Upgrading feel like Russian  
> roulette  because it is difficult to know how the changes will  
> effect the system.  And  experimentation  with making fundamental  
> changes  is equally frustrating as  doing an engine change on car  
> running down 101 during rush hour.  From this perspective and  
> experience Craig Latta's Spoon is an easier sell than a full Squeak  
> release.  The reason is simple, its a programmer's mantra: Less  
> Code, Fewer Bugs, Lower cost.

For what it's worth, as a long time lurker and essentially a non-user  
myself with a background in "traditional" languages, these two  
passages nearly completely nailed how I feel about Squeak and the  
idea of using Squeak as it exists now.  I couldn't have said it  
better myself - and I've tried.  :-)

l8r
Sean