On Wednesday 23 May 2001 04:22, "Göran" Hultgren wrote:

> I know you guys have read it though - actually about 278 (unique ips) of
> you! Hey, that is quite a lot of people since I have only posted it on the
> list.

I read it and enjoyed it. Of course, since I haven't seen the product yet, I 
have to take your word for it...

Good writing, though. Thanks!

As for the lack of XP influences in Squeak, I have some ideas:

* Little Squeak work is being done in business IT shops, where methodology is 
important.

* Much Squeak work is single-person. It's still not clear to me how XP fits 
into a single-developer scenario (sure, test first, etc., but what about pair 
programming or pair debugging?).

* Also, because of the relatively limited project scope, it matters less 
exactly how you're working (almost anything you're comfortable with should 
work OK).

* I'm not clear on what all the advantages of the XML description for UI's 
are (it looks like an XML version of the Smalltalk code that used to build 
these things). It would make it easier for a UI builder tool; is this 
important to people? Do people really want to make the kind of form-centric 
apps with Squeak that they do with VW? Are these kinds of descriptions useful 
for other than the classic form-type (button/text entry/etc) constructions 
(i.e. could you do, say, a ScorePlayerMorph with them)?

As you say, it would make it easier to hook up other UI's.

* There have been a number of improvements to Squeak since 2.8. Among the 
biggest of these are the new event model, and improvements in Morphic. Does 
Stable Squeak intend to include any of these improvements? 

* You don't say what happened to the Network stuff. Will this be a loadable 
module or is it just not done yet?

* What's the story about the Refactoring Browser?

Anyway, I enjoyed the piece. Thanks for writing it!

-- 
Ned Konz
currently: Stanwood, WA
email:     ned at bike-nomad.com
homepage:  http://bike-nomad.com