Hello,

<imho>
The "problem" is that we are talking about squeak from 2 different points 
of view.

1) Squeak as the Dynabook engine.
2) Squeak as a "standard" developer tool.

The main goal of SqC is the 1.  Most of the persons in the list share this 
goal. Other people see Squeak just like 2. And others (like me) think that 
1 and 2 are an unique goal.

Squeak has *really* good support for 1, and not so good support for 
2.  There are a lot of people working in 2 (examples: seaside, odbc for 
squeak, zurgle, comanche, rST, GemSqueak, etc).  Right now, squeak has 
*really* good support for 2 for web applications, but many works if needed.

SqC, from my point of view, has no interest (or not a big one) in 2.  This 
is a good reason to put SqF on the road. Squeak has a big potential to 
become the best tool for 2 requirements, but many work is needed.
</imho>

Just my 2 cents,

Diego Gomez Deck


At 01:46 PM 6/8/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>On 6/8/02 7:21 AM, "Gary Fisher" <gafisher at sprynet.com> wrote:
>
> > To say that Squeak cannot succeed unless it becomes practically
> > indistinguishable from that which it should replace is reminiscent of the
> > argument that automobiles could not succeed unless they looked like
> > carriages.
>
>To my eye, early cars did look like carriages just replace the horses
>in front with an engine and a steering wheel (which seemed to have been
>taken from boats).  Some did call them horseless carriages.  I
>would imagine this early connection allowed faster adoption and
>a good start on manufacturing (body of knowledge and know techniques).
>The modern car is an evolution that brought everyone along.
>
> > Squeak is not just another medium in which to build Windows or
> > Mac applications; that's far too limited a viewpoint.  That's
> > why your second statement, "On the other hand, when you think
> > about it, isn't Squeak itself the 'killer app'?" is so much
> > closer to the mark (and, coincidentally, exactly what I was
> > going to say. :-)  The trick, then, is to get the word out.
> > IMHO, at this point Squeak needs evangelists more than
> > developers.
>
>Linux works because of the Unix tradition.  C++, Java, and Perl add
>to the C family.  I still wish Squeak had a bridge back to normal
>programmers.  It looks so alien.  It has its own rules.  I really,
>really want to use it more, but I could never ship anything in it.
>I would violate the common experience of my users, I would have to
>provide more training.  I would love to do it, but I can't see the
>benefit in the additional education.  What does the Technicolor
>interface bring to the table?  Why can't the windows act like native
>windows?
>
>Maybe SqueakAsAnOperatingSystem should have been a bigger goal.  It
>would then focus people on the unique UI.  Maybe their should be a
>SqueakLite that is small, has the minimum needed to run, and adopts
>the native interface (maybe even using native widgets).  Modules will
>help things, but I look at my Mac running Squeak and see the Commanche /
>Swiki image open with the colors and fonts.  It feels like running
>X-Windows with a funky setup.  I don't want just another app, but I
>want it to "do the suit and tie thing" once in a while.
>
>I am sorry this wasn't a "happy happy" post, I just think this is one
>of the big items keeping me from using it all the time.
>
>Matt