Proposal about SqueakMap etc (was Re: [squeak-dev] Re: SqueakMap
soon working in 4.0/4.1!)
asqueaker at gmail.com
Fri Apr 9 18:37:37 UTC 2010
I stand by my praise of SqueakMap, however I just saw this e-mail and
wanted to say I didn't intend to re-elevate rhetorical tension after
you'd already diminished it. I was reading the list in chronological
order.. Not even Göran got as worked up as I did..
On Thu, Apr 8, 2010 at 7:55 AM, Chris Cunnington
<smalltalktelevision at gmail.com> wrote:
> I like all of that. I think what you're saying is really constructive. By
> the time I finished reading your post, I started to think SqueakMap has the
> possibility to be pretty exciting.
> My only real animus here is against implementing what we've had before
> without any modification or change. I want to see some kind of evolution
> here and the things you're proposing sound worthwhile.
> I think my problem is with the user interface. Three ways to get code (
> Thank you but I will "Über einen Kamm scheren" - "lump together" from
> Google Translate) on one menu is odd. It screams legacy.
> I think it comes down to this: I will not like things I don't understand and
> which nobody justifies the existence of. I use SqueakSource every day. I've
> been burned by SqueakMap.
> 1. Include some instructions in the image regarding "how to get stuff"
> into the image. Seems like a good short term thing to do for 4.1. We can
> easily explain the difference between SS and SM. PU (as it was called
> earlier - Package Universes) is ... well, see below.
> I like that we're moving in a constructive direction, but I don't know that
> written documentation is the key. It doesn't make sense to me if we're
> explaining weird UI design. In a way, UI design is documentation.
> 2. Possibly throw out Universes in 4.1 *iff* it does not work anymore
> and noone can fix it. I haven't even tried it. Does it work?
> I'm all for that. It's a bold stroke, and I like that kind of thing. And if
> we have two points of entry instead of three, that sounds good to me. And if
> that can be done without losing the value (to some people) of the UB, then
> everybody wins.
> 3. Regardless of when we throw out Universes we should improve SM to
> cover the "loss" of it.
> Sounds good.
> 4. Improve SqueakMap. There is a loooong list of things we could do. One
> thing of immediate interest given this discussion is to make it "mirror"
> SS somehow so that packages hosted on SS are searchable and installable
> from SqueakMap Package Loader and listed on map.squeak.org etc etc. We
> could also revive the "Make release on SqueakMap"-button that used to be
> in SS so that it can be used for *real* releases and not just for all
> new versions. Chris? Others?
> I like all of this.
> I think these are really great ideas. My sole objective is to see this area
> of our world reformed in a way that is in keeping with all that has been
> accomplished in the new image. I understand how intense I've been. And I can
> see policial capital or goodwill that I may have had on Squeak-dev on fire
> all around me. But if that was the price necessary to generate the exciting
> reforms Goran has now proposed. I'd do it again.
More information about the Squeak-dev