[squeak-dev] Re: Packages, Packages, Packages
miguel.coba at gmail.com
Sat Dec 12 21:17:45 UTC 2009
> I am clueless, why people eagerly jumping into the boat in one case,
> but prefer to stay away from it in another.
> Something irrational in this..
I'm not jumping blindly.
But even after several people bashing Keith about the _documentation_
for using it
(and the sade comment from himself about not open sourcing Bob) that is a
closed way for many.
It is responsibility of the creator of the software to build the documentation.
And not, the freaking squeak wiki isn't a good documentation. Tutorials,
blog posts, real use scenarios are most than needed. The dry, one after
other list of functionality that is not inmediatly obvious how to use and
_where_ and _when_ to apply can't get many followers.
> The Sake and Bob  projects were announced more than a half year
> earlier than Metacello, but there are few people who ever took time to
> evaluate it (including me).
> But sure, why we would need to ever look at it, if we got a new shiny toy?
That is not true, but Dale cared to made documentation, blog posts and
indeed to promote its own tool and that gave him an advantage an several
Maybe Sake/Bob is genial, but we'll never know and, with time, maybe
Metacello could get the same functionality also. Why, because there are
more people interested in it just by the simple fact that it has digerible
> I have nothing against Metacello project , neither beloved with
> Sake/Bob solution(s). I know very little about them.
> But if i would need a packaging tool, i'd first consider alternatives
> & look for existing tools and evaluate them before jumping with closed
>  http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/5953
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
More information about the Squeak-dev