Hi Martin.
Having been on this list for several years now, it seems to me that a newish person proposes a "new look" for Squeak every six months or so. That's not a bad thing, mind you, it's just a fact that change happens very slowly in this area.
If you look at the Swiki, you'll see lots of cool screenshots of Squeak-tweaks that people have done over the years. Unfortunately, most of these tweaks never got past the "ain't it cool" stage. The really hard part of any project is to find someone who will stay the course and finish it.
If you are interested in changing Squeak's look, I encourage you! More power to you. But you may want to see why those other efforts failed before you spend a lot of time on this.
Cheers,
---==> Chris
PS> Many of the people who were interested in changing Squeak's "look" are still on the list. Perhaps you can round up a few of them and really turn some heads.
On 3/29/02 7:06 PM, "Norton, Chris" chrisn@Kronos.com wrote:
If you look at the Swiki, you'll see lots of cool screenshots of Squeak-tweaks that people have done over the years. Unfortunately, most of these tweaks never got past the "ain't it cool" stage. The really hard part of any project is to find someone who will stay the course and finish it.
Chris, you are correct. The work to do this is not a one day job. However, I can tell you, as one of the folks that have done it once, the really hard parts are:
1. To apply a "look" across the board requires changes to a lot of classes in the tools themselves. At this point it's still needing of additional refactoring. And the work to do that AND to the "look" can be overwhelming.
2. I never really ever heard positive feedback to finish the work from anyone other than the "newbies". It could just be me, but it felt like getting "skins" or "themes" or the work that Jim Benson had been doing (what do you call that stuff nowadays Jim?) was looked upon as a waste of time by the more senior Squeakers out there. It was hard to get "Buy-in" on the work and, in my case since the skins project was just my way of learning about drawing things for the first time in Morphic (I was heavy into MVC prior to that project), it was no longer worth the effort. I gave up and went on to other things. When you make a major change to the product you have to have some level of support for the base factorings you need or you'll end up constantly in software maintenance mode.
I agree with the sentiment that a sexy look is good marketing. I truly believe that. When a product is a pleasure to look at people want to know more about it. In the case of Smalltalk, after they hopefully see the lightness of the language and depth of the class hierarchy they will be hooked.
- Steve
FWIW --
I'm all for improvements in the look of Squeak in any and all nooks and crannies.
Cheers,
Alan
------
At 10:49 PM -0500 3/29/02, Stephan B. Wessels wrote:
On 3/29/02 7:06 PM, "Norton, Chris" chrisn@Kronos.com wrote:
If you look at the Swiki, you'll see lots of cool screenshots of Squeak-tweaks that people have done over the years. Unfortunately, most of these tweaks never got past the "ain't it cool" stage. The really hard part of any project is to find someone who will stay the course and finish it.
Chris, you are correct. The work to do this is not a one day job. However, I can tell you, as one of the folks that have done it once, the really hard parts are:
1. To apply a "look" across the board requires changes to a lot ofclasses in the tools themselves. At this point it's still needing of additional refactoring. And the work to do that AND to the "look" can be overwhelming.
2. I never really ever heard positive feedback to finish the work fromanyone other than the "newbies". It could just be me, but it felt like getting "skins" or "themes" or the work that Jim Benson had been doing (what do you call that stuff nowadays Jim?) was looked upon as a waste of time by the more senior Squeakers out there. It was hard to get "Buy-in" on the work and, in my case since the skins project was just my way of learning about drawing things for the first time in Morphic (I was heavy into MVC prior to that project), it was no longer worth the effort. I gave up and went on to other things. When you make a major change to the product you have to have some level of support for the base factorings you need or you'll end up constantly in software maintenance mode.
I agree with the sentiment that a sexy look is good marketing. I truly believe that. When a product is a pleasure to look at people want to know more about it. In the case of Smalltalk, after they hopefully see the lightness of the language and depth of the class hierarchy they will be hooked.
- Steve
--
Agreed. A more "modern/techy/stylish" look would open Squeak to new users more.
Another perceived problem (and somewhat mine), is that Squeak is a "developer's" toy in the sense it's meant for people interested in working ON Squeak, and not for those that want to USE Squeak. Everything about this list SCREAMS it...yes everyone is helpful to newbies, but the main goal of this list appears to be in improving Squeak itself, rather than using it to do real work on a day-to-day basis.
A real problem (again related to this list) is that to a newbie, Squeak is a moving target. There are changesets, and fileins, and enhancements and so on released every day on this list and to corporate types this sounds like "Squeak is undone and unstable, why should I bet on something that is never done... I want to make money, not spend time updating my software." Yes there are websites and the Swikis, but this list is the most active "support" component, and as such it's often confusing and frustrating to newbies who are looking for help on how to do simple things and they have to wade through tons of emails (several hundred a day at times) when all they want is a simple answer to a simple/dumb problem they may have.
Squeak needs to move away from being a toy for developers, for testing their latest theory, and move into usability and "friendliness". Squeak is like Linux; it keeps trying (eToys are great) but the core product is still too cumbersome to use for most people.
Maybe a "beginner's" Squeak would be good...stripped of everything (sound, speech, web browser, etc etc etc) except the core language, a more user-friendly, high-tech skinned morphs, and a "beginner's" Squeak book...something on the order of "Learn Squeak in 12 Hours".
Then allow them to grow at their own speed (rather than dumping the entire system on them and saying "Oh, it's easy to learn, just jump in the deep end...you'll get it in a year or so...") by plugging in modules/components, whatever you want to call them...
Just my two cents, S
-----Original Message----- From: squeak-dev-admin@lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-admin@lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Alan Kay Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 12:14 AM To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Re: Comments welcome: designer look for squeak
FWIW --
I'm all for improvements in the look of Squeak in any and all nooks and crannies.
Cheers,
Alan
------
At 10:49 PM -0500 3/29/02, Stephan B. Wessels wrote:
On 3/29/02 7:06 PM, "Norton, Chris" chrisn@Kronos.com wrote:
If you look at the Swiki, you'll see lots of cool screenshots of Squeak-tweaks that people have done over the years. Unfortunately,
most of
these tweaks never got past the "ain't it cool" stage. The really
hard part
of any project is to find someone who will stay the course and
finish it.
Chris, you are correct. The work to do this is not a one day job.
However,
I can tell you, as one of the folks that have done it once, the really
hard
parts are:
1. To apply a "look" across the board requires changes to a lot
of
classes in the tools themselves. At this point it's still needing of additional refactoring. And the work to do that AND to the "look" can
be
overwhelming.
2. I never really ever heard positive feedback to finish the work
from
anyone other than the "newbies". It could just be me, but it felt like getting "skins" or "themes" or the work that Jim Benson had been doing
(what
do you call that stuff nowadays Jim?) was looked upon as a waste of
time by
the more senior Squeakers out there. It was hard to get "Buy-in" on
the
work and, in my case since the skins project was just my way of
learning
about drawing things for the first time in Morphic (I was heavy into
MVC
prior to that project), it was no longer worth the effort. I gave up
and
went on to other things. When you make a major change to the product
you
have to have some level of support for the base factorings you need or you'll end up constantly in software maintenance mode.
I agree with the sentiment that a sexy look is good marketing. I truly believe that. When a product is a pleasure to look at people want to
know
more about it. In the case of Smalltalk, after they hopefully see the lightness of the language and depth of the class hierarchy they will be hooked.
- Steve
Hi
you are right But this is difficult. That's why the modules are so important. Because once we will be able to split this big blob image into manageable projects. The control of the system will be "distributable", the kernel will be easier to refactor.
But you can also help. Write a book on Squeak in 12 Hours even a draft or participate into a project to improve a part of Squeak.
The style improved already if you compare with this ugly 2.8 style.
Stef
Agreed. A more "modern/techy/stylish" look would open Squeak to new users more.
Another perceived problem (and somewhat mine), is that Squeak is a "developer's" toy in the sense it's meant for people interested in working ON Squeak, and not for those that want to USE Squeak. Everything about this list SCREAMS it...yes everyone is helpful to newbies, but the main goal of this list appears to be in improving Squeak itself, rather than using it to do real work on a day-to-day basis.
A real problem (again related to this list) is that to a newbie, Squeak is a moving target. There are changesets, and fileins, and enhancements and so on released every day on this list and to corporate types this sounds like "Squeak is undone and unstable, why should I bet on something that is never done... I want to make money, not spend time updating my software." Yes there are websites and the Swikis, but this list is the most active "support" component, and as such it's often confusing and frustrating to newbies who are looking for help on how to do simple things and they have to wade through tons of emails (several hundred a day at times) when all they want is a simple answer to a simple/dumb problem they may have.
Squeak needs to move away from being a toy for developers, for testing their latest theory, and move into usability and "friendliness". Squeak is like Linux; it keeps trying (eToys are great) but the core product is still too cumbersome to use for most people.
Maybe a "beginner's" Squeak would be good...stripped of everything (sound, speech, web browser, etc etc etc) except the core language, a more user-friendly, high-tech skinned morphs, and a "beginner's" Squeak book...something on the order of "Learn Squeak in 12 Hours".
Then allow them to grow at their own speed (rather than dumping the entire system on them and saying "Oh, it's easy to learn, just jump in the deep end...you'll get it in a year or so...") by plugging in modules/components, whatever you want to call them...
Just my two cents, S
-----Original Message----- From: squeak-dev-admin@lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-admin@lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Alan Kay Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 12:14 AM To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Re: Comments welcome: designer look for squeak
FWIW --
I'm all for improvements in the look of Squeak in any and all nooks and crannies.
Cheers,
Alan
At 10:49 PM -0500 3/29/02, Stephan B. Wessels wrote:
On 3/29/02 7:06 PM, "Norton, Chris" chrisn@Kronos.com wrote:
If you look at the Swiki, you'll see lots of cool screenshots of Squeak-tweaks that people have done over the years. Unfortunately,
most of
these tweaks never got past the "ain't it cool" stage. The really
hard part
of any project is to find someone who will stay the course and
finish it.
Chris, you are correct. The work to do this is not a one day job.
However,
I can tell you, as one of the folks that have done it once, the really
hard
parts are:
- To apply a "look" across the board requires changes to a lot
of
classes in the tools themselves. At this point it's still needing of additional refactoring. And the work to do that AND to the "look" can
be
overwhelming.
- I never really ever heard positive feedback to finish the work
from
anyone other than the "newbies". It could just be me, but it felt like getting "skins" or "themes" or the work that Jim Benson had been doing
(what
do you call that stuff nowadays Jim?) was looked upon as a waste of
time by
the more senior Squeakers out there. It was hard to get "Buy-in" on
the
work and, in my case since the skins project was just my way of
learning
about drawing things for the first time in Morphic (I was heavy into
MVC
prior to that project), it was no longer worth the effort. I gave up
and
went on to other things. When you make a major change to the product
you
have to have some level of support for the base factorings you need or you'll end up constantly in software maintenance mode.
I agree with the sentiment that a sexy look is good marketing. I truly believe that. When a product is a pleasure to look at people want to
know
more about it. In the case of Smalltalk, after they hopefully see the lightness of the language and depth of the class hierarchy they will be hooked.
- Steve
On Saturday 30 March 2002 06:15 am, Serg Koren wrote:
A real problem (again related to this list) is that to a newbie, Squeak is a moving target. There are changesets, and fileins, and enhancements and so on released every day on this list and to corporate types this sounds like "Squeak is undone and unstable, why should I bet on something that is never done... I want to make money, not spend time updating my software."
But if you aren't on the list, you don't have to even deal with the changes. The current version (3.0) is plenty stable for real work. As was 2.8.
Sure, people are improving it day by day. It's just that most of that activity is happening on the list where it is semi-public.
Compare this situation to a similar situation in the Linux world: if I were deploying a server right now, I'd use a 2.4 kernel. If I were developing Linux itself, I'd be concerned with the 2.5 branch.
But, as far as I can tell, Squeak Central is not much interested in promoting Squeak as a corporate replacement for Java. They have their own uses for Squeak. Some people are interested in using Squeak to deploy applications (and some have); the discussion around "Stable Squeak" reflected their concerns. The modules system (which is not yet ready for the world at large) is a response (in part) to their concerns.
So what you have just said by
" But if you aren't on the list, you don't have to even deal with the changes. The current version (3.0) is plenty stable for real work. As was 2.8."
reads to the newbie (and to me...fairly new) as..."there is no support for Squeak to the end user...just the developers of Squeak. Use the stable release and like it."
and " Sure, people are improving it day by day. It's just that most of that activity is happening on the list where it is semi-public."
There are NO other Squeak lists...are there? So why isn't there a newbie-list? Which has been asked for previously on here...or at least a DIGEST version that doesn't flood a newbie with 100s of to them, useless emails. THIS LIST IS *NOT* NEWBIE (much less, "user") FRIENDLY!
Finally, you've proved my point by: " But, as far as I can tell, Squeak Central is not much interested in promoting Squeak as a corporate replacement for Java. They have their own uses for Squeak."
The point is they don't promote Squeak for NEW users, but to those who like the thrill of working on THEIR pet project. "Developer's toy" again. Unless this mindset changes, Squeak will always remain a "niche" toy (a "toy" language--in the programming meaning of the word "toy") for developers, by developers, and only those developers who have an interest in playing with the toy rather than using the toy. It will never become a useful TOOL for software developers. The point of Squeak shouldn't be to allow a select group of Smalltalk fiends to test out their own pet projects, but a SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT TOOL, others should be able to use with minimal pain.
I found it sad that people on here scoffed at Apple promoting Java as the only viable cross-platform tool. The point is, IT IS. Squeak (the implied thought by the scoffers) is NOT a serious development platform (despite what people on here may think) BECAUSE OF THE MINDSET OF THE CORE DEVELOPERS AND MOST OF THE PEOPLE ON THE LIST.
Stop thinking of Squeak as your OWN little toy. Start thinking of it and treating it as a production-quality tool, and you may get somewhere.
That being said, I still think Squeak is one cool "potential" development tool, and worth the effort (in my case). But MOST developers want a tool they can use, not a tool they have to work on.
Also, the mentality of "if you want it, or suggest it, you own it and should do it" is very demeaning...one of I'm superior and I have more important things to work on and you SHOULD be smart enough to do it yourself. Get it through your heads; not everyone with a good suggestion IS a Squeak/Smalltalk expert.
Suggestions: a) Create a newbie list targeted at USERS. b) Create a core Squeak product that allows you to code in Smalltalk AND NOTHING ELSE. Make it expandable if the person wants to grow later. c) Give it a good interface (Sorry, but even Morphic looks like the diagrams in the original Smalltalk books I have). d) Provide a comprehensive, SIMPLE to understand, user manual. e) Provide a comprehensive, SIMPLE Squeak/Smalltalk manual. f) Change your attitude toward people who know less than you do.
Sorry if I'm upsetting a few people on here. But I mean well. I'm trying to get Squeak out of its closet. If I upset you, then obviously, you are one of the people that NEEDS to change...
Cheers, S
-----Original Message----- From: squeak-dev-admin@lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-admin@lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of Ned Konz Sent: Saturday, March 30, 2002 11:16 AM To: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Subject: Re: Comments welcome: designer look for squeak - User friendliness..
On Saturday 30 March 2002 06:15 am, Serg Koren wrote:
A real problem (again related to this list) is that to a newbie,
Squeak
is a moving target. There are changesets, and fileins, and
enhancements
and so on released every day on this list and to corporate types this sounds like "Squeak is undone and unstable, why should I bet on something that is never done... I want to make money, not spend time updating my software."
But if you aren't on the list, you don't have to even deal with the changes. The current version (3.0) is plenty stable for real work. As was 2.8.
Sure, people are improving it day by day. It's just that most of that activity is happening on the list where it is semi-public.
Compare this situation to a similar situation in the Linux world: if I were deploying a server right now, I'd use a 2.4 kernel. If I were developing
Linux itself, I'd be concerned with the 2.5 branch.
But, as far as I can tell, Squeak Central is not much interested in promoting Squeak as a corporate replacement for Java. They have their own uses for
Squeak. Some people are interested in using Squeak to deploy applications (and some have); the discussion around "Stable Squeak" reflected their concerns. The modules system (which is not yet ready for the world at large) is a response (in part) to their concerns.
Serg Koren wrote:
<snip>
I found it sad that people on here scoffed at Apple promoting Java as the only viable cross-platform tool. The point is, IT IS. Squeak (the implied thought by the scoffers) is NOT a serious development platform (despite what people on here may think) BECAUSE OF THE MINDSET OF THE CORE DEVELOPERS AND MOST OF THE PEOPLE ON THE LIST.
Stop thinking of Squeak as your OWN little toy. Start thinking of it and treating it as a production-quality tool, and you may get somewhere.
</snip>
No, Serg, Java is a "serious" development platform because Sun *owns* it and wants to make *money* off it. It is part of their revenue stream. They *control* it. Sun has a huge monetary incentive to sell Java to the development community, support it, and improve it. Sun has an abundance of *paid employees* who work *full time* to make production-quality tools. What incentive do we, the Squeak developer's community, have to improve Squeak? Are we being paid to work on it full time? Is Squeak Central making money off it? No.
The things you find in Squeak belong to the community because the Squeak community created them. This community isn't doing it for profit. They're doing it because they *enjoy* it and like sharing with others.
Back in the 70s, people were really into sharing programs with each other until this guy named Bill Gates came along and start making money off it. Nothing wrong with that. In fact, Microsoft's subsequent profitability has brought careers and fortunes to many. That's a great thing. But making money, unfortunately, takes the *fun* out of things. It drives people to compete instead of share.
Squeak, like Linux, embodies both a creative and sharing spirit. That's not going to change. Thankfully. Ideas are great, but solutions are far better. Share some solutions with us! Help Squeak be better! Don't come here and treat us like a bunch of rubes that don't know its potential. We know its potential. That's why we *use* it more than we complain about it!
Chris Becker
Hi Serg
I'm the first one to complain about Squeak ;), believe me. But the point is that nobody gets paid to program and improve Squeak. So I think that or you look at other people pushing the system or you participate in. And there are a lot of possibilities, not only at the programming level. In the SqueakFoundation we will be looking for people for a number of tasks.
I do a lot of presentations of Squeak. I always mention that Squeak could be better and that this is the terrible kid of the Smalltalk family. If people open Squeak, may be they will also open other Smalltalks.
Then you can also participate to promote Smalltalk in general. I'm pushing ESUG www.esug.org we are defining program to support poor universities.
So you see you are right, then do something to help the community. The most important is to have fun. People see it ;)
Stef
On Saturday, March 30, 2002, at 01:08 PM, Serg Koren wrote:
Stop thinking of Squeak as your OWN little toy. Start thinking of it and treating it as a production-quality tool, and you may get somewhere.
I did, and then I did. Apparently, Serg didn't, so he didn't.
That being said, I still think Squeak is one cool "potential" development tool, and worth the effort (in my case). But MOST developers want a tool they can use, not a tool they have to work on.
Squeak isn't for "MOST developers," as Serg defines it. So what? The point is not that Squeak is a tool that you have to work on, its that Squeak is a tool that you CAN work on.
Also, the mentality of "if you want it, or suggest it, you own it and should do it" is very demeaning...one of I'm superior and I have more important things to work on and you SHOULD be smart enough to do it yourself. Get it through your heads; not everyone with a good suggestion IS a Squeak/Smalltalk expert.
I wasn't when I was a newbie, but somehow I made it through the list. So did a good many of us who never touched Smalltalk before we met Squeak. Perhaps Serg should get through his head that not everyone with a suggestion is making a good suggestion -- that familiarity and some modicum of understanding of the subject might inform his suggestions more effectively.
Serg clearly doesn't get it, and that's fine so far as it goes. That said, we could always use some better beginner documentation. ideally put from the perspective of the newbie. Perhaps Serg will undertake the journey and contribute the same.
On Tuesday 02 April 2002 17:46, you wrote:
On Saturday, March 30, 2002, at 01:08 PM, Serg Koren wrote:
... That
said, we could always use some better beginner documentation. ideally put from the perspective of the newbie. Perhaps Serg will undertake the journey and contribute the same.
Well, yes, but... The Windows install works fine, at least on Win95, but I never did get the tarball install working on Linux... kept missing libraries that I couldn't find. Finally I just removed it from my disk and then went to rpmfind. That provided me with the necessaries, and now I have a working version. But I started off trying to follow the install instructions, and it was a disaster. I nearly gave up (well, I did give up on the process...)
The Squeak 3.0 greeting screen is pretty, but doesn't give a newcomer much idea of where to go and what to do. Squeak 2.5 was much better. Morphic is worth being proud of, but either the tutorials need to reflect it, or, possibly better, the initial screen should look more like that of Squeak 2.5, and the "World of Squeak" should be first called from a workspace window, and later a part of the introductions should tell how to set it as the default first screen. This would give people a workable intro without reducing the power or convenience. (If I hadn't previously briefly looked at Squeak 2.5 I'd really have been lost.)
I can't talk about the tutorials yet, as I'm not through my first one. But consider including them with the distribution (and callable from within Squeak).
It is a weakness of the Win95 Squeak implementation that the screen cannot be resized. Presumably there is some programmatic way to do this, but if the containing window is resized, then ideally the colored backgrounds, and the size of the working surface would be resized.
Hi Charles,
Sorry for responding late but something got my attention in this thread and so I reviewed it and found an interesting observation in your original post.
The Squeak 3.0 greeting screen is pretty, but doesn't give a newcomer much idea of where to go and what to do. Squeak 2.5 was much better.
It's interesting that you say that. I actually went back and compared the 2.5 and 3.0 startup screen without finding much of a difference. Both of them have a "Welcome To" window (with pretty much the same stuff) both have a "Getting started" window (again with pretty much the same stuff) and both have a couple of demo projects (with 3.0 having even more stuff in there). So what exactly is it that you find better in 2.5 than in 3.0 (this is not a rhetorical question - I'm really interested in finding out what you liked better in 2.5)?
Morphic is worth being proud of, but either the tutorials need to reflect it, or, possibly better, the initial screen should look more like that of Squeak 2.5, and the "World of Squeak" should be first called from a workspace window, and later a part of the introductions should tell how to set it as the default first screen.
I don't quite understand what you mean here. Can you give an example of "calling 'Welcome to Squeak' from a workspace window" and what exactly people should do in order to get it as the default first screen?!
This would give people a workable intro without reducing the power or convenience. (If I hadn't previously briefly looked at Squeak 2.5 I'd really have been lost.)
Again, can you say a bit about where exactly you would've been lost?!
Cheers, - Andreas
Serg Koren wrote:
Agreed. A more "modern/techy/stylish" look would open Squeak to new users more.
Another perceived problem (and somewhat mine), is that Squeak is a "developer's" toy in the sense it's meant for people interested in working ON Squeak, and not for those that want to USE Squeak. Everything about this list SCREAMS it...yes everyone is helpful to newbies, but the main goal of this list appears to be in improving Squeak itself, rather than using it to do real work on a day-to-day basis.
A real problem (again related to this list) is that to a newbie, Squeak is a moving target. There are changesets, and fileins, and enhancements and so on released every day on this list and to corporate types this sounds like "Squeak is undone and unstable, why should I bet on something that is never done... I want to make money, not spend time updating my software." Yes there are websites and the Swikis, but this list is the most active "support" component, and as such it's often confusing and frustrating to newbies who are looking for help on how to do simple things and they have to wade through tons of emails (several hundred a day at times) when all they want is a simple answer to a simple/dumb problem they may have.
Squeak needs to move away from being a toy for developers, for testing their latest theory, and move into usability and "friendliness". Squeak is like Linux; it keeps trying (eToys are great) but the core product is still too cumbersome to use for most people.
This is true, but it's also true about every single computer system I have used. Squeak is the first system I have used that try to bridge the gap between using (as in point, click, type) and using (as in developing). Once I got over that hurdle the whole thing made more sense, but I can also understand that most people will not have time or interest to learn it this thorough.
Maybe a "beginner's" Squeak would be good...stripped of everything (sound, speech, web browser, etc etc etc) except the core language, a more user-friendly, high-tech skinned morphs, and a "beginner's" Squeak book...something on the order of "Learn Squeak in 12 Hours".
The image you get form squeakland.org is stripped down a bit I think. There are a few basic tutorials on that site, too.
Then allow them to grow at their own speed (rather than dumping the entire system on them and saying "Oh, it's easy to learn, just jump in the deep end...you'll get it in a year or so...") by plugging in modules/components, whatever you want to call them...
But people come to Squeak for different purposes, some to use it as a swiki server, some to work on multi media, some to learn Smalltalk, some to play FreeCell. It's hard to anticipate the target audience.
Karl
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Alan Kay -
Andreas Raab -
Andrew C. Greenberg -
Charles Hixson -
Chris Becker -
ducasse -
Karl Ramberg -
Ned Konz -
Norton, Chris -
Serg Koren -
Stephan B. Wessels