[squeak-dev] Re: [ANN] A new anniversary without 3.10

stephane ducasse stephane.ducasse at free.fr
Fri May 9 06:30:33 UTC 2008

Hi andreas

This is really fun to see you saying that when we got problems not  
having 3D in squeak because some guy decided not to really maintain  
the old 3D engine and never bother to let Squeak get any new one. But  
anyway, if the squeak community does not want to take care of the  
people doing Seaside and other software engineering work (you know  
making a living out of Squeak) and only care about often half broken  
or old abstraction (Speech was based on a pretty old algorithm for  
example), then good luck. In addition we always said that people could  
work on building an image for kids or people willing to toy with Squeak.

May be finally you want to attract people to Croquet and this is why  
it is politically important for you to state that,
and may be this is important for you that Squeak gets "Fun" in that  
sad way, because I imagine that lot of people will
not use FunSqueak for doing Seaside dev.

But of course we are the bad shitty guys, we take responsibility of  
having monticello and all the rest.
Don't reply, it is not necessary, I will not read this thread  
anymore.  this just confirms that we took the right decision with
Sapphire now called Pharo (from faro ~ phare = lighthouse).


On May 8, 2008, at 11:38 PM, Andreas Raab wrote:

> Keith Hodges wrote:
>>> Squeak is not welcoming anymore... first time I met Squeak it was  
>>> on 3.4 I think, and the overall first impression was great, lots  
>>> of things to discover and wonder at. these days there is a dull  
>>> grey background with a few windows opened on technical text,  
>>> details of last updates... it could not be more different.
>> Thats the whole point of derivative images such as Fun-Squeak or  
>> Squeak-dev image. Its horses for courses.
>> Those of us who want to actually use squeak for something in  
>> particular find unloading packages harder than loading them.
>> So I support the goal of trimming down the main image (though its  
>> still a bit fat)
> Then how come that 3.10 basic is larger than 3.6 full? Where is the  
> "trimming" in that? Isn't it much more accurate to say that the fun  
> bits have been replaced with boring bits? A quick comparison between  
> 3.6 and 3.10 shows that games, speech and 3d are gone, and traits,  
> monticello and universes have been added (there are probably more  
> but those are obvious major differences).
> Cheers,
>  - Andreas

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list