<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Jan 30, 2008 10:38 AM, Gary Chambers <<a href="mailto:gazzaguru2@btinternet.com">gazzaguru2@btinternet.com</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Well, despite what has been said here we at Pinesoft are (successfully)<br>devloping commercial applications with Squeak.</blockquote><div>Congratulations -- that's good to see! We need more successes. Where can one download your UI widgets? <br>
Laurence<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><br><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org">squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org</a><br>[mailto:<a href="mailto:squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org">squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org</a>]On Behalf Of Laurence<br>
Rozier<br>Sent: 30 January 2008 3:33 PM<br>To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list<br>Subject: Re: Promoting Squeak/Smalltalk<br><br><br><br><br><br>On Jan 30, 2008 4:20 AM, Colin Putney <<a href="mailto:cputney@wiresong.ca">cputney@wiresong.ca</a>> wrote:<br>
<br><br>On 29-Jan-08, at 9:48 PM, Laurence Rozier wrote:<br><br>> While I don't agree, I also don't see anything inherently wrong or<br>> bad about this view - to each his own. However, it isn't consistent<br>
> with the original goals of Smalltalk nor the "programming for the<br>> rest of us" statement currently on the Squeak About page. I know<br>> there are others who don't want to see the community expand very<br>
> much and if that is a consensus then the About page ought to be<br>> changed to reflect it. Although Smalltalk as an SDK is a stretch in<br>> my view, Croquet makes clear who its audience is - truth in<br>> advertising. If the Squeak community really doesn't want Squeak to<br>
> be for "everyone" that ought to be clear up front.<br><br><br>Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that we make the community<br>into some kind of elitist club where outsiders aren't welcome. I<br>
really like the way this community treats newcomers, and I wouldn't<br>want to change that. I'm a recent arrival myself!<br><br>What I *am* saying is that I don't think we should be trying to<br>achieve "popularity."<br>
Agreed.<br><br>We should put our efforts into developing our<br>technology and empowering the community.<br>I agree - the question is what is needed to empower a community that<br>includes "everyone"?<br><br>If that happens to attract<br>
new members, great! If not, that's fine too. The community we have<br>today is large enough to be successful.<br>I suppose it depends on what the definition of "success" is. The constant<br>and justified "million euros" comments are a clear reminder that there are<br>
unmed needs. In 2000, I had to hire a Smalltalker for an internet startup. I<br>interviewed or had conversations a good number of very experienced folk all<br>of whom really wanted to be making their living from Smalltalk. It was hard<br>
then and still is. Yes Seaside and Croquet are opening doors but do the<br>math - that's not an abundance of positions even for the most talented<br>Squeakers. Getting a Squeak based project funded inside a company(large or<br>
small) is also hard. As a result Smalltalk and Squeak will continue to<br>survive well into the future, but most of the people attracted to it(along<br>with their families, friends and co-workers) will not get to use it broadly.<br>
We'll continue to use software that just sucks or is a poor imitation which<br>is sad because it doesn't have to be that way and for a few short years it<br>wasn't. There are ways out of the current mess, but people first have to<br>
acknowledge the mess and/or there has to be a significant wave of new<br>adopters. Then the community has to be willing to make the difficult<br>tradeoffs needed to climb out of the quicksand. In my view, survival is a<br>
necessary ingredient for success not the goal.<br><br>Laurence<br><br><br><br><br><br>Colin<br><br><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br>