[squeak-dev] The future of Squeak & Pharo (was Re:
[Pharo-project] [ANN] Pharo MIT license clean)
bernhard at pieber.com
Sun Jun 28 20:37:20 UTC 2009
I agree with what Juan and K. K. Subramaniam wrote. Squeak needs a
goal, a statement what it is supposed to be. One thing I miss from the
old days is the kitchen sink image. Neither Etoys nor Pharo have the
goal for delivering such an image. So that could be a good raison
d'être: Show what can be done with Squeak, and show what is done with
Squeak. Something inclusive, a place for showing off all the cool,
interesting, blue plane stuff, which is possible with such a dynamic
environment. This attracted me to Squeak in the first place, and I
think it still has the potential to attract newcomers.
I miss Connectors, MathMorphs, Alice, Games, ThingLab, Genie, Nebraska
and all the other cool things that were once. But maybe it's just
Thanks for your attention.
Am 28.06.2009 um 20:02 schrieb K. K. Subramaniam:
> What Squeak lacks is a clear enunciation of its value proposition.
> The opening
> para of squeak.org is too general and leaves gaps. A short para that
> answers all the following questions:
> what is it primarily? - a programming environment, runtime, a
> kernel, a
> research workbench for virtual machines?
> who is the intended audience? researchers? industrial programmers?
> what is the primary purpose? prototyping? demos? test beds?
> what are its nearest competitive technology? Java? Flash?
> What is uniquely different (and much better) from these?
> Such a para will serve to set expectations early and clearly.
Am 28.06.2009 um 16:08 schrieb Juan Vuletich:
> Squeak doesn't have a set of objectives and an agenda that is
> meaningful for developers. And it hasn't had it for a long time.
> Pharo is new. But Tweak, Croquet and Etoys forked looong time ago.
> Now you also have Pharo and Cuis. Most developers are contributing
> to forks, and we only send our stuff for Squeak as a side-effect.
Am 28.06.2009 um 14:57 schrieb Juan Vuletich:
> Squeak needs an agenda badly. Something along the lines of the old
> "Where is Squeak headed" from Dan. Without that, Squeak can't
> advance in any direction at all. People choosing a Smalltalk for
> their projects can not know what to expect. Forks can not know if
> they are needed or not.
> Most forks have clearly defined objectives. Etoys, Croquet, Cuis do
> have them. The objectives for Pharo are broader, and less defined.
> But Pharo guys know where they are going, and they have some
> developer time and organization to advance.
> Squeak has nothing of this.
> The Squeak community needs to define objectives and an agenda for
> Squeak, or decide that we don't have them, and that the Squeak
> branch will not be developed further.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Squeak-dev