<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">I agree with what Juan and K. K. Subramaniam wrote. Squeak needs a goal, a statement what it is supposed to be. One thing I miss from the old days is the kitchen sink image. Neither Etoys nor Pharo have the goal for delivering such an image. So that could be a good raison d'être: Show what can be done with Squeak, and show what is done with Squeak. Something inclusive, a place for showing off all the cool, interesting, blue plane stuff, which is possible with such a dynamic environment. This attracted me to Squeak in the first place, and I think it still has the potential to attract newcomers.<div><br></div><div>I miss Connectors, MathMorphs, Alice, Games, ThingLab, Genie, Nebraska and all the other cool things that were once. But maybe it's just me. ;-)</div><div><br></div><div>Thanks for your attention.</div><div><br></div><div>Cheers,</div><div>Bernhard <br><div><br><div><div>Am 28.06.2009 um 20:02 schrieb K. K. Subramaniam:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div>What Squeak lacks is a clear enunciation of its value proposition. The opening <br>para of squeak.org is too general and leaves gaps. A short para that crisply <br>answers all the following questions:<br><br> what is it primarily? - a programming environment, runtime, a kernel, a <br>research workbench for virtual machines?<br> who is the intended audience? researchers? industrial programmers? advanced <br>programmers?<br> what is the primary purpose? prototyping? demos? test beds?<br> what are its nearest competitive technology? Java? Flash?<br> What is uniquely different (and much better) from these?<br><br>Such a para will serve to set expectations early and clearly.</div></blockquote><br></div><div><div>Am 28.06.2009 um 16:08 schrieb Juan Vuletich:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div>Squeak doesn't have a set of objectives and an agenda that is meaningful for developers. And it hasn't had it for a long time. Pharo is new. But Tweak, Croquet and Etoys forked looong time ago. Now you also have Pharo and Cuis. Most developers are contributing to forks, and we only send our stuff for Squeak as a side-effect.<br></div></blockquote><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#144FAE"><br></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#144FAE"><br></font></div><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#144FAE"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); "><div>Am 28.06.2009 um 14:57 schrieb Juan Vuletich:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div>Squeak needs an agenda badly. Something along the lines of the old "Where is Squeak headed" from Dan. Without that, Squeak can't advance in any direction at all. People choosing a Smalltalk for their projects can not know what to expect. Forks can not know if they are needed or not.<br><br>Most forks have clearly defined objectives. Etoys, Croquet, Cuis do have them. The objectives for Pharo are broader, and less defined. But Pharo guys know where they are going, and they have some developer time and organization to advance.<br><br>Squeak has nothing of this.<br><br>The Squeak community needs to define objectives and an agenda for Squeak, or decide that we don't have them, and that the Squeak branch will not be developed further.</div></blockquote></span></font></div></div></div></div></body></html>