Andreas Kuckartz wrote:

> I still do not see a need for a project fork which is not even prepared
> openly.
I agree with you that the work could have been more publicized, but...
The whole idea of Squeak is to encourage everyone to do whatever they
want. Interestingly both Alan Kay and Dave Thomas actually encouraged
people to do this in their keynotes at SmalltalkSolutions.
Standardization is stagnation, and we already have enough systems that
are standardized, haven't we? ;-)

> Which of these features are incompatible with the aims of SqC ?
Actually none. And stable Squeak is not intended to be incompatible, the
idea (John correct me if I put this wrong) is to take a breath, take a
very close look at the system and work out some issues like modularity,
refactoring, cleanup of historically "grown" code that later will
benefit the "mainstream" Squeak tremendously.

> Why should I expect more openness in the future?
Be patient just a little while longer.
And, the world tour is coming almost to your home town in August (ESUG
in Essen), for LA that would be considered walking distance (except
nobody would walk here ;-) ).

Michael


-- 
 "To improve is to change, to be perfect is to change often." 
                                            Winston Churchill
+------------------------------------------------------------+
| Michael Rueger    m.rueger at acm.org      ++1 (310) 937 7196 |
+------------------------------------------------------------+