I think that the opensource vm and the very portable approach/implementation are
very strong attractions in themselves for people who want to do
industrial-strength Smalltalk or other non-multimedia things. You don't find
these in other dialects AFAIK.
It is entirely Squeak's fault that it simultaneously offers a very valuable base
to different groups of people who want to take it in different directions.
I personally think it should be punished

Florin





bob at bobjectsinc.com on 03/09/2001 03:32:58 PM

Please respond to squeak at cs.uiuc.edu

To:   squeak at cs.uiuc.edu
cc:   (bcc: Florin X Mateoc)
Subject:  Re: Against wastefull forks (Re: Taking Ownership of Squeak  (WAS Re:
      Python at Disney))




I would normally agree with this, but I think Squeak is a special case.
You can't effectively do blue-plane research without occasionally burning
some disk-packs, and you can't effectively do robust 24x7
industrial-strength apps when the platform keeps shifting and breaking
under your feet.  Both approaches to development are valid, but difficult
to reconcile.

On the other hand, it could be argued that if you want to do
industrial-strength Smalltalk in early 2001, you should use a different
dialect.  Opinions?

     -Bob


At 09:00 PM 3/9/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>> it seems to me that we need to draw a line, fork
>> Squeak (I don't know if 3.0 or 3.1 is the right one to
>> fork with yet) and create a Red Hat kind of company
>> that will caretake the product, referee and
>> manage releases, and become the repository Disney
>> has been for the last several years.
>
>I disagree.
>
>I am currently reading Eric S. Raymond's The Cathedral and the Bazar. There
>are a few paragraphs in the chapter Homesteading the Noosphere on pages
>72-73 regarding forks and pseudo-forks which I think are valid. There
>usually is (and should be as far as I am concerned) "a strong social
>pressure against forking projects".
>
>I do not see a "plea of dire necessity" to fork the Squeak project. When did
>SqC object to submissions of Smalltalk code or VM modifications which were
>necessary to make Squeak "an industrial-strength, generic problem-solving
>system for all of us" ? If they did not do that then new or improved code is
>required instead of a probably wastefull project split.
>
>Andreas
>
>
>








This communication is for informational purposes only.  It is not intended as
an offer or solicitation for the purchase or sale of any financial instrument
or as an official confirmation of any transaction. All market prices, data
and other information are not warranted as to completeness or accuracy and
are subject to change without notice. Any comments or statements made herein
do not necessarily reflect those of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., its
subsidiaries and affiliates.