[Squeakfoundation]An architecture for sustainable Squeaking

Henrik Gedenryd squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
Sun, 03 Jun 2001 13:55:29 +0200

Joseph Pelrine wrote:

> Quoting you - ("Sorry, newcomer X, but your code's just too shaky, we'll
> have to pass on that for now")

I believe you misunderstood the point of that quote. My point was that you
don't want to say these things out loud, well at least I don't want to,
because it is extremely rude and inconstructive. And also you risk making a
bad public impression if it turns out that you were the one missing the

Since you are a self-declared newcomer to Squeak, I won't blame you for not
knowing that we have a community situation and a culture of uncoordinated
contributions that we need to get working, which does not meet the
requirements for the usual solutions and "numerous writings". If you had
been around, then you would have known that there are people who oppose even
the first principle I listed because the opposite is "convenient".

And as Daniel pointed out, the usual namespaces, modularity, and even team
stuff, wouldn't be sufficient for the Squeak community even if we get them.
We need to have a social structure around them. If however you do know about
something beyond what you've mentioned here and on your web pages, that does
address our unique situation, then please let us know.

And now hopefully we can get back to the issue I was intending to discuss
with my posting. I'll respond to that later.

all the best,