Andreas Raab wrote:
Juan Vuletich wrote:
No matter how many times we said this, from what I see in responses to this thread, it seems people still don't get it.
Not unexpectedly ;-) I can see both sides though; on the one hand it's difficult to describe exactly where Squeak will be without having a set of known resources. On the other hand, the question of where Squeak is headed is certainly a fair one. As a result, I'm trying to answer the question by looking at the resources that are being committed to improving Squeak, i.e., summarize what people actually work on and try to project where this will get us.
Amen!
My own Squeak direction is described in http://www.jvuletich.org/Cuis/Index.html . As it seems to be incompatible with that of many in the community, it requires a fork.
I don't think that the goals are incompatible. With more work on modularity, I think that your goals can be a subset of those in the larger community (just as my goals are a subset of those).
Yes, you are right. When modularity in Squeak gets good enough, Cuis could merge back. That would be great.
Aside from that, I fully support your direction, and I'll try to keep helping. Of course, I'd be delighted if at least some of my objectives were adopted for Squeak too.
Absolutely. I agree with a lot of what you're writing. I have some different ideas in various areas but on a fundamental level I think we have fairly compatible ideas.
Cheers,
- Andreas
I'd like to know about where we don't agree.Your opinion is very valuable to me. Besides, it would help me think on making optional packages for a Squeak kernel with the specific features of Cuis I'd like to keep.
Cheers, Juan Vuletich