Usability and look-and-feel (was Re: [squeak-dev] The future of Squeak & Pharo (was Re: [Pharo-project] [ANN] Pharo MIT license clean))

Igor Stasenko siguctua at gmail.com
Mon Jun 29 22:18:58 UTC 2009


2009/6/29 Ramon Leon <ramon.leon at allresnet.com>:
> Stéphane Rollandin wrote:
>>>
>>> Progress and backwards compatibility are fundamentally opposing forces,
>>> those insisting on backwards compatibility are the ones preventing progress.
>>
>> Because they are opposing forces, we need to balance them. What you say
>> could be completed with: those insisting in progress are the ones preventing
>> actual software to be implemented.
>
> Yes, and in Squeak, they are completely unbalanced, those wanting things to
> stay the same have won out over any major progress.  The eToys thing is a
> perfect example, it should have been ripped out a long time ago, the eToy
> community already forked.  The Squeak version is dead, and should have been
> removed but illogical resistance to change prevented it.
>
>> What is the point of progress if you can't harvest it ? Don't you see the
>> drawbacks of a permanently moving target ?
>>
>> Stef
>
> If you can't break compatibility, there is no progress, there is only
> stagnation.  The whole point of a version is to be able to break
> compatibility with previous versions, to make breaking changes, to correct
> mistakes of the past and make progress.  Harvesting is the wrong approach,
> it only works for small changes.  You don't harvest big rewrites, you
> upgrade to a new image and reload your code fix whatever your unit tests
> determine is now broken.
>
> The idea of an ever evolving monolithic image that is continually patched
> into being current is just dead or dying.  What works today is a small core
> image and loadable packages with unit tests so images can be rebuilt
> anytime, especially between versions.  Unmaintained packages *should* die.
>
> No one is forced to upgrade to the new version, if someone wants
> compatibility, they shouldn't upgrade.  If they want the latest and
> greatest, then porting their code to newer versions and fixing what they
> broke is the price they pay, it must be that way necessarily.  Otherwise
> there is no point in having new versions.
>
> The drawbacks of a moving target are much less severe than the drawbacks of
> a stagnant and dying community which will be the end results of a attitude
> of not allowing breaking changes and progress.  People keep forking Squeak
> because the Squeak community is utterly directionless and resistant to
> change because that's the nature of any organization led by a committee
> elected by diverse groups of people who don't share a common goal.
>
> Pharo is what Squeak should have been, a place for people who actually do
> the work to build what they want and not be held back by those who don't and
> just have strong opinions and don't want things to ever change.  The people
> actually doing the work should be the only people with any final say about
> what does or doesn't get done and what direction things should go.  The only
> way to challenge the removal of old, bad, or dead code should be to
> volunteer to step up and maintain it.
>

Well said!
Thank you, Ramon for expressing a perfect and clear vision of current
situation in a perfect english.
I sharing the same. And can sign under every of your word.
I hope some day i will learn how to express my thoughts in similar fashion. :)

> --
> Ramon Leon
> Chief Technical Officer
> Alliance Reservations Network
> IM Identities: gnaritas at aol, gnaritas2002 at yahoo, ramon.leon at gmail
> Work: 602.889.5547
> Fax: 602.224.9896
>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list