"Igor Stasenko" <siguctua at gmail.com> writes:

> 2008/12/8 stephane ducasse <stephane.ducasse at free.fr>:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Off Topic:  Looks like there is debate stirring among the Ruby community
>>> on whether to fork Ruby to experiment with parallelization, etc.  Sounds
>>> awfully familiar.
>>
>>
>> But forking is not the end, this is the start of something. Just have a look
>> at what we are doing no MVC, no etoy, a lot of fixes, a lot of tests,
>> TTF,.....
>>
>
> I'd like to empasize this:
> - Pharo has the clearly established nearly-achievable goals (good or
> bad - depends on people's preferences)
> - does Squeak has the same clearly established nearly-achievable goals?
>
> If yes, then why they not on squeak.org, but on
> (http://installer.pbwiki.com/311) , and also, why there is still
> people, like Edgar constantly attacking them, showing that there is no
> consensus about future of squeak?
So what's the point? Does anyone have to agree with another? I can not
see that  anyone is "responsible" for Squeak. So everyone does what
he/she likes. I for my had my share of wishes also, but I can  not see
that many others share those. So bad for me,  but Squeak still around
and growing, so enough are quite happy with Squeak as it it these
days. 

>
> I think, its important to define clearly, that EVERYONE should
> understand what is the current squeak goals, so no more discussions
> about them is needed. A clearly defined tasks is half of success.
A sure, we don't know what future will bring but we define it. Has
worked remarkable well...

Regards
Friedrich