danil osipchuk wrote:
to me "code cleanup" does not mean that any functionality is lost. only that the code is cleaned up. maybe I am too simple-minded :)
How to change the fundament of a building and in the same time to avoid removing of upper floors?
I don't know, I'm not into masonry, only computer science.
To be honest I never had been an etoys user and probably should not jump in here. But anyway I wonder: if etoys are already working just fine right now (in efficiently forked image) why do they can not be detangled from the current squeak-dev image to allow it move forward?
I don't know, I did not implement eToys. I just use it, happily.
this is utter nonsense. I just don't understand where we are going here. why destroy Squeak ?
Another point of view is that blocking any change going to squeak may finally repell the majority of creative people from it and kill in a different way (by not allowing to create a future). I'm not want to be harsh (still not used to English unfortunately) but for me it if squeak should die - then let it die: people may move to other projects which are lacking support now (including Strongtalk).
well I'm part of the creative people using Squeak. and if it gets dismantled, I will stop working with it. so your point works the other way round, too.
regards,
Stef