Squeak's "general acceptance"
Avi Bryant
avi.bryant at gmail.com
Tue Jul 5 23:19:41 UTC 2005
On Jul 6, 2005, at 12:27 AM, Blake wrote:
>>
>> At any rate, you're certainly right that Squeak is not a
>> "professional desktop development tool". If you're looking for
>> one of those (and, I gather, on the Windows platform), try Dolphin.
>>
>
> Well, we were discussing "general acceptance" and, in my case, of
> what people come and ask of me. It's not a matter of me "looking
> for a professional desktop development tool". (Personally, I doubt
> I'd use any Windows-specific Smalltalk.) I will be looking for a
> replacement environment/tool soon for the abovementioned big app,
> and I suspect we'll end up using Java. (I'm not excited at the
> prospect, but it could be much worse.)
>
> And, you know, it's =fine= if Squeak is never meant to be a
> "professional desktop development tool". If Squeak has a
> fundamental "failing" it might be that it tends to excite the
> desire to make it all things to all people. If I can use it to
> teach kids and experiment with cool things, that's cool.
>
> It's just not "general acceptance".<s>
Teaching kids and experimenting - yes, Squeak's great for that. It's
also great, IMNSHO, for doing professional web development - there
are a few of us around whose companies are built around exactly
that. And I suspect that, given a little time, it will also be great
for doing professional desktop development - Rob's wxSqueak work is
moving steadily in that direction. But personally, I don't think
Squeak (or Smalltalk) ever will be "generally accepted" in the kind
of sense you mean, and, yes, I'm fine with that.
Avi
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|