Hi!

Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> On 17.03.2009, at 13:36, Göran Krampe wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> Really wrong forum, but what the heck.
> 
> Wrong indeed. Reply-to set to squeak-dev.

Dropped vm-dev altogether.

> For those coming late: the original thread starts to get interesting 
> around here:
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/2009-March/002427.html
> 
>> Bert Freudenberg wrote:
>>> Most in the squeak.org community do not think of Squeak as a product 
>>> with users, but rather as a tool they only use themselves. E.g., 
>>> there is even resistance to creating a squeak-users mailing list 
>>> aimed at Smalltalk developers who just want to use Squeak for 
>>> developing :/
>>
>> Interesting. I wonder if I am one of those "resisting". When I heard 
>> the idea of creating a squeak-users list I first thought that, no, 
>> Squeak is not polished enough to be just "used" as a multimedia 
>> environment.
>>
>> Because I didn't think of "using" to possibly could have meant "using 
>> for development"! Yeah, call me daft.
> 
> Hehe. Well, at least I am trying to always distinguish between "Etoys" 
> and "Squeak". This was not always necessary, and in particular the 
> education community refers to Etoys as Squeak out of habit. But around 
> here "Squeak" means Smalltalk development.

I agree. And also, I am *in general* not really opposed to anything at 
all. :) I am just weary of "forum pollution" and probably dislike the 
idea that we always need to partition ourselves into these defined "roles".

>> Another reason is probably that I don't understand why anyone would 
>> only want to "use" Squeak without any interest in how it is being 
>> moved forward nor how it works inside. When you develop in Squeak you 
>> typically invest in its future, so why on earth would you not be 
>> considering yourself a member of the "squeak-dev" community?
> 
> Good question. But when you develop in, say, Python, don't you "invest 
> in its future"? Still, most Python users would not contribute to Python 
> directly, right? But indirectly they do.

"Contribute directly"? By developing in a language/system you 
immediately become involved - and thus you contribute. I am fairly sure 
that the majority of subscribers to squeak-dev have NOT their developer 
initials inside the image - nor necessarily in any other public package 
for Squeak. I still think they contribute.

...so what am I saying? :) I am just saying, yet another mailinglist? 
Sure, go ahead, that is IMHO *not* the point.

The point is - should we draw these lines in the sand or should we 
perhaps draw *other* non-obvious lines or should we indeed draw them at all?

> In my opinion broadening the user base of Squeak would have long-term 
> benefits.

I really, really think you presume something here. I am not against 
"broadening the user base".

 > Yes you may get more annoying questions, but that's what the
> proposed users list would be for (initially anyway - there might even be 
> more books if there was a real market).

Again, I *like* beginner questions - and especially when posted to 
squeak-dev because they almost always spawn interesting threads. And 
*everyone* has IMHO some interesting perspective.

 > With more Squeak users there
> also would be more who jump the fence and become Squeak developers. 
> Which would cover your next point ...
> 
>> Anyway, for other "development tools" I can see myself more clearly as 
>> a "user" - but a Smalltalk environment is so intertwined with itself 
>> that I don't see that separation. I also do not like squeak-dev 
>> turning into some kind of "club for the mighty developers". Which is 
>> why I was hesitant about the beginners list too - although I probably 
>> was wrong there.
>>
>> [SNIP]
>>> They will have an open ear to your concerns.
>>
>> I do think Squeakers in general have a very "open ear" - it is not 
>> ears we lack, it is time to spend in solving problems that someone 
>> else has that we lack. :) At least most of us lack it.
>>
>> regards, Göran
> 
> ... which is that each individual only has so much time. But if we had a 
> larger community and made it really easy to contribute, we'd still move 
> much faster.

Again, I am not against growing. I don't think anyone really is. I am 
against "stretching us thin" and "grouping" based on some kind of 
"level" of knowledge, or perceived role.

But hey, don't listen to me - let the elected ones do some talking on 
this subject :)

regards, Göran