<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
Em 28-06-2009 19:31, Bernhard Pieber escreveu:
<blockquote cite="mid:3831AC89-FA07-4328-B843-97EE3013A14C@pieber.com"
type="cite">(...)</blockquote>
<blockquote cite="mid:3831AC89-FA07-4328-B843-97EE3013A14C@pieber.com"
type="cite">I don't agree at all that that was a wise move. I think
Squeak lost a lot of existing and potential contributors by saying: "If
you want your code to continue to work in Squeak, you have to
constantly adapt to our changes." I think that is what Stéphane
Rollandin was trying to tell us. I am convinced that the separation of
the base and the full image and the concentration on the base instead
of the full image was the reason why forks were inevitable. Starting
refactoring was necessary and a very important service for the
community, but it had to have been done in the full image! My argument
is basically that of Wolfgang Eder from July 2006:
<div><a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://www.nabble.com/Proposal-for-a-Squeak-migration-meeting-ts4867570i120.html#a5260913">http://www.nabble.com/Proposal-for-a-Squeak-migration-meeting-ts4867570i120.html#a5260913</a></div>
<div>That is still a very relevant thread today, by the way.</div>
</blockquote>
Agreed<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:3831AC89-FA07-4328-B843-97EE3013A14C@pieber.com"
type="cite">
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>Isn't that made clear to anyone these days: a days of bloated
images<br>
which includes everything and where everything is working is passed.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
Obviously, it is not clear to me. ;-) Seriously, I have thought a lot
about it and I am convinced that the kitchen sink image was Squeak's
main attraction. The moment we lost it we started losing contributors.</div>
</blockquote>
Agreed. No meaning reinventing the wheel over and over... BTW
re-usability was one of the first goals of OOP...<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:3831AC89-FA07-4328-B843-97EE3013A14C@pieber.com"
type="cite">
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>Because there are people who need to deploy stuff on server
(to run<br>
Seaside or Wiki, or other services), and if you put bloated stuff<br>
there, and try to scale, the people around will start asking, why it<br>
consumes so much resources?<font class="Apple-style-span"
color="#000000"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#144fae"><br>
</font></font></div>
</blockquote>
Note, that I am not saying that the kitchen sink image could or should
not be put together from a small image and nicely modularized packages.
What I am saying is that if you clean up only the base image you will
never be able to put together the full image because I guess many of
the maintainers will not bother to repair stuff others broke. Worse
yet, they probably will not bother anymore to create more cool stuff.</div>
</blockquote>
Agreed. <br>
<br>
Earlier someone wrote a nice list of packages that aren't working
anymore... many of these packages weren't replaced. Worse: many
packages appear in Universes (for instance) but cannot be loaded
(example: try to load Monticello 1.6 and you'll have an infinite loop
while trying to load Monticello 1.5. Then you may ask: what you want
Monticello 1.6 for? Like for installing Balloon3D from Universes ???
But then B3D is broken too...at least in Scheduler...).<br>
<br>
And it brings back the lack of professional support. Someone could
argue that Alice isn't necessary anymore because we have Scratch. Fine.
But how to use Scratch for basic school students if it comes in English
and Squeak just doesn't have anything like i18n... Well, Scratch is a
fork... and it goes forever... so people give up and use Java Alice.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:3831AC89-FA07-4328-B843-97EE3013A14C@pieber.com"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>See, I can follow your reasoning. And it sounds very convincing.
Therefore, I am not blaming anyone for going that route. I am totally
sure everyone had only the best intentions. Nevertheless I am totally
convinced it was a really bad idea and it still is, because that way
you lose contributions and contributors.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers,</div>
<div>Bernhard</div>
<pre wrap="">
<hr size="4" width="90%">
</pre>
</blockquote>
CdAB<br>
</body>
</html>