[Squeak-e] Draft Consensus Plan (was: Comments on Anthony's "...Shared Smalltalk")

Mark S. Miller markm at caplet.com
Sun Feb 9 19:31:30 CET 2003

I'll answer in terms of the 'Draft Consensus Plan'  I just posted. Hence the 
change of title.

At 01:45 PM 2/8/2003 Saturday, cg at cdegroot.com wrote:
>[...] What I've constantly been
>thinking is that you could ease the transition somewhat by providing
>'unsafe Squeak' below Squeak-E in order to have all the
>bells'n'whistles, not unlike the Java/E relation.

Is 'unsafe Squeak' == current Squeak? If so, then this is in line with the 
Draft Consensus Plan. 

> However, we could be
>*way* faster in a situation where everything that *can* run in Squeak-E
>will actually run in Squeak-E because it is 'merely' a matter of
>refactoring, not rewriting (and we've got the better tools).

What kind of "faster" did you have in mind? Development time or runtime?

For runtime, I don't think it should make much difference either way.

For development time, some things will be faster to tame, others will be 
faster to refactor/port. Of course, for the long term, you'd rather 
refactor/port, so it's good to err on that side.

>On a side note, I've prepared a version of Squeak that I might be able
>to redistribute under an open source license (no traces of any Apple
>fonts in the image ;-)). In order to attract the widest audience, it
>might be an idea to work on that particular version (which I've dubbed
>'CleanSqueak' because the license is cleaned up and my forceful
>replacement of all original fonts with Helvetica gives quite a clean
>look ;-))

Cool! What are your license constraints. I hope you chose a Mozilla 
compatible license (most anything other than GPL). My preference is MIT X.

Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain


More information about the Squeak-e mailing list