Andreas Raab wrote:
> Juan Vuletich wrote:
>> No matter how many times we said this, from what I see in responses 
>> to this thread, it seems people still don't get it.
>
> Not unexpectedly ;-) I can see both sides though; on the one hand it's 
> difficult to describe exactly where Squeak will be without having a 
> set of known resources. On the other hand, the question of where 
> Squeak is headed is certainly a fair one. As a result, I'm trying to 
> answer the question by looking at the resources that are being 
> committed to improving Squeak, i.e., summarize what people actually 
> work on and try to project where this will get us.

Amen!

>> My own Squeak direction is described in 
>> http://www.jvuletich.org/Cuis/Index.html . As it seems to be 
>> incompatible with that of many in the community, it requires a fork.
>
> I don't think that the goals are incompatible. With more work on 
> modularity, I think that your goals can be a subset of those in the 
> larger community (just as my goals are a subset of those).

Yes, you are right. When modularity in Squeak gets good enough, Cuis 
could merge back. That would be great.

>> Aside from that, I fully support your direction, and I'll try to keep 
>> helping. Of course, I'd be delighted if at least some of my 
>> objectives were adopted for Squeak too.
>
> Absolutely. I agree with a lot of what you're writing. I have some 
> different ideas in various areas but on a fundamental level I think we 
> have fairly compatible ideas.
>
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas

I'd like to know about where we don't agree.Your opinion is very 
valuable to me. Besides, it would help me think on making optional 
packages for a Squeak kernel with the specific features of Cuis I'd like 
to keep.


Cheers,
Juan Vuletich