Squeak in commercial use.
Avi Bryant
avi at beta4.com
Sun Oct 17 11:14:32 UTC 2004
On Oct 17, 2004, at 11:12 AM, Hans N Beck wrote:
> My questions are:
>
> - what is the acceptance of colleagues to use squeak (if they were no
> fans before, of course ;-) as programmers or even as users ?
> - what is the acceptance of management ?
> - what was the main reason to use squeak or what was the killing
> argument to convince the disbeliver ?
> - is there any chance to sell products not looking like produced with
> MS Visual Studio ?
One argument that has helped me in the past is the "self-sufficiency"
argument - when you're building an app with a commercial Smalltalk, you
are dependent on the Smalltalk vendor (Cincom, IBM, Object Arts), and
possibly on the operating system vendor (Microsoft). If they change
the licensing terms of the product you're using, that can mean trouble.
With Squeak, you have control really all the way down, in that the
environment will always be free, and it is so trivial to port to a new
platform that even if all existing operating systems disappeared you'd
still be ok.
As for the rest of your questions, that'll depend a lot on how friendly
programmers/management already are to Smalltalk, and to open source,
and on what kind of a product you're building...
Avi
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|