>> No, but [there haven't been any releases yet] and [it takes a lot of
>> time and effort to make things move].
>
> 	Yeah. :)  Well, I hope that the design notes I've put out are of some
> help.

there were exicting sure!

>
>> Finally, tomorrow a rich company can also offer you to work for it in
>> the dark side :) for a lot of $ (I wish you that). and bye bye squat
>> flow...
>
> 	Well, all I can say is that I think that's very unlikely. :)  I want 
> to
> be able to keep using my own work, which effectively puts me in the 
> same
> boat as the public. (Note that, for what it's worth, Flow itself has
> already been released a couple of times.)

I know this is why I asked because I would like to avoid to lose good 
assets.

>
>> That's why I do not count in year.
>
> 	I couldn't parse that. :)  Do you mean, that's why you don't budget
> time around it?
I mean that I do not project myself too far in the future. You know MS 
could be interest in traits and hop :)

>
>>> I actually think it'd be better to obviate any reasons to stay with
>>> the accreted snapshot. :)  Making major changes in the old snapshot
>>> will just slow that down.
>>
>> I could not understand that block :)
>
> 	I mean, currently we fuse (or "accrete") new stuff into the old stuff.
> That's what I think of as the "old way". I really like having that
> capability, but I think it's something that makes more sense for a
> single person. I've always found the notion of a whole community using 
> a
> particular large object memory to be rather strange, not something I
> would expect as the default. The larger an object memory gets, the more
> likely it is to have stuff that someone doesn't want.

Exact this is why I dream about a mini-image and packages...because 
even if I value multimedia, I'm
a language freak.

>
> 	Continuing to tweak this large object memory will distract from the
> task of building a modular system and a set of modules to go with it, 
> as
> it has distracted us for decades. :)

Yes

>
>> The only thing I can tell you is that we are interested.
>
> 	Great! :)
>
>> I could ask guys from here to have a look and build stuff on it but
>> they should be able to play with it first. but you decide your plans
>
> 	Sure. As I mentioned previously, I want Squat to have a decent
> module-loading-and-unloading demo before I release it, and that's
> proceeding well.

So we are waiting :)
>
>
> 	thanks again,
>
> -C
>
> --
> Craig Latta
> http://netjam.org/resume
> craig at netjam.org
> [|] Proceed for Truth!
>
>