> Hello Ramon,
>
> RL> Honestly, I don't care anymore.  eToys was just brought up as an example
> RL> to point out the difference between the "let's make progress" side vs
> RL> the "no change monolithic image" side.  I already left Squeak in peace,
> RL> I'll be using Pharo and anyone I introduce to Smalltalk will never see
> RL> Squeak because they'll start with Pharo.
>
> if that's true then you might as well stop arguing. It really doesn't
> help a discussion taking a strong position and then telling people you
> don't care about the subject (Squeak) anymore.
>
>
> Best regards,
>
> Herbert                            mailto:herbertkoenig at gmx.net

Not true, the discussion started trying to figure out how to pull
Pharo improvements back in; that makes it of interest to me.   Pharo
has it's act together, it'd be nice to see Squeak do the same.  It's
too small a community to be so fragmented over nonsense.

Secondly, I'm not taking a strong position so much as a logical one.
I'm engaging more out curiosity about what could be the possible
argument against removing it.  eToys forked, no one has yet made a
reasonable case for keeping the old unmaintained version in Squeak
when so many of the people who ended up forking wanted it removed.
The people who really use eToys don't use Squeak.  Several forks
immediately gutted it out to clean up Morphic, something the Squeak
community wouldn't let them do, an overall attitude that contributes
to such fragmentation of effort.  So I'm curious why the Squeak
community seems to prefer to drive people away and fork rather than
allow some messy rotting unmaintained code to be removed.

Thirdly, it's still a lively discussion about something Smalltalk
related, which is more than enough to make it of interest to me since
seeing any interest at all in Smalltalk is pretty rare, and I do
rather enjoy blathering on about Smalltalk.

Ramon Leon
http://onsmalltalk.com