<br><br>On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Keith Hodges<<a href="mailto:keith_hodges@yahoo.co.uk">keith_hodges@yahoo.co.uk</a>> wrote:<br>> Randal L. Schwartz wrote:<br>>>>>>>> "Keith" == Keith Hodges <<a href="mailto:keith_hodges@yahoo.co.uk">keith_hodges@yahoo.co.uk</a>> writes:<br>
>>>>>>><br>>><br>>> Keith> Sake/Packages is far more likely to be able to achieve this, and has<br>>> Keith> already done so.<br>>><br>>> And if it wasn't seen as the choice, it means you need to do a better job<br>
>> promoting and documenting it, not just claiming it's better.<br>>><br>> I do not believe the premise of your statement.<br>><br>> No amount of effort announcing, documenting, and promoting makes any<br>
> difference. I have made considerable efforts on all three over the past<br>> 3 years whereas in contrast Lukas does no announcing, documenting or<br>> promoting, yet people use his stuff without a second thought.<br>
<br>Simply not true. Google Lukas Renggli and you get<br> <a href="http://www.lukas-renggli.ch/">http://www.lukas-renggli.ch/</a><br><br>Click on the Magritte link and you get overview, installation instructions, links to mailing lists, code repositories, instructions on how to report errors, a list of publications and a tutorial.<div>
<br></div><div>Google Keith Hodges and Bob the Builder and you get </div><div> <a href="http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/release/2008-October/000036.html"> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/release/2008-October/000036.html</a><br>
which, when I read it, presumes I know an awful lot of context I have no clue how to create. There's no overview, there's no pointer to code, there's no tutorial, no hand-hlding, juts a description of how you go about things once you understand how the whole thing works. i.e. far too demanding for a noob like myself. I'm simply not smart enough to figure out how to use your system form that description.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Magritte on the other hand looks like it could be worth some of my ever shorter in supply time to explore. (As does Pier, Scriptaculous and the rest of Lucas's thoughtfully presented projects).<br>
<br>><br>> I have attempted to show that the community needs to move forward using<br>> plans, proposals, and documented developments, yet the chosen path<br>> appears to be continuous hacking. If you want to understand something<br>
> read the code for yourself; this appears to be a good enough philosophy<br>> for Avi, Andreas, and Lukas then it should be good enough for me.<br>><br>> basically I don't care anymore</div><div><br></div>
<div>If you really care you'll try and look at the process from an outsiders perspective and document the system assuming little more than familiarity with Squeak, and you'll document it on a web site (there are Squeak wikis you can use that you don't have to pay for) so that people can find it, read it and reference it. You'll use the work of people like Lukas as an example of how to present your stuff. You'll ask people to read draft versions, and improve your presentation based on the feedback you receive. Then you might find your stuff starts being used and appreciated.</div>
<div><br></div><div><br>><br>> Keith<br>><br>><br><br></div>