On Dec 20, 2004, at 3:13 PM, Avi Bryant wrote:
>
> I think that's partly due to the decentralized nature of development
> these days - nobody is in a position to assert that their vision of
> something will be the standard one for all Squeak users, so they pick
> names like "Monticello" (which is a version control system) rather
> than just calling it "Version Control System".  Maybe we should adopt
> a policy of generically renaming things once they become widely
> used...
>

Since I have signed on to Squeak there were already plenty of code 
words being used: "Celeste", "Scamper", "Genie", "Balloon", etc. Heck, 
if you told someone that you were working on "Croquet", would they be 
able to tell what you were talking about without prior exposure? The 
things which have generic easy-to-relate-to names (e.g., "browser") are 
typically programming tools and often have some sort of Smalltalk 
ancestry.

In fact, the term "browser" is a dangerous one these days since anyone 
outside of Smalltalk immediately associates it with "Web browser" -- 
and I still sometimes do this.

I've compared Squeak (and Smalltalk up through Smalltalk-80) to being 
like the Wonka Chocolate Factory. (Starring Alan Kay as Willy Wonka, 
Bill Gates as Augustus Gloop and Steve Jobs as Veruca Salt. Does that 
mean we're Oompa-Loompas?) Meaning things in Squeak are done with much 
more playfulness, imagination, and personal care than the big wide 
software world which is full of Earnest Young Men In Suits who want to 
cram expertise into their heads while wasting as little time as 
possible on understanding (since time is money). Squeak does not cater 
well to that mindset and needs to be approached with something of an 
innocent heart. Playing, exploring, asking questions and getting 
feedback, actually *doing* are important. I'd say that the cute names 
for Squeak's parts are part of the culture of personal care and of 
craftsmanship which goes into shaping Squeak (and which sets it apart 
from other platforms, languages, etc.).

To understand Monticello, for instance, one must use it. You can 
compare it to CVS in terms of basic functionality but once you use the 
tool there is no comparison: Monticello is intuitive whereas CVS is 
irksome. Heck, I didn't understand it at all (I kind of glarked that it 
was a packaging/versioning tool from list traffic) until a few days ago 
when I decided to try using it to bundle my MorphAgents package. And I 
was surprised by its Right Thing nature. Then it becomes *Monticello* 
to you, and not just "the version control system", because that can 
imply something cool like Monticello or something cruddy like CVS. (And 
Monticello does more than version control.)

To be a Squeaker is to have a life full of remarkable little 
discoveries like this -- provided you get in and play and do things 
with it. The playing and doing are, imho, things we want to encourage 
from the wider user community.

--Jeff