Hi,

2005/9/3, Blake <blake at kingdomrpg.com>:
> On Fri, 02 Sep 2005 22:26:23 -0700, Victor Rodriguez
> <victor.palique at gmail.com> wrote:
> [stuff about Squeak's accessibility]
> 
> I'm not going to disagree with you, exactly, because I think your
> perceptions are mostly correct. Although, I would say that light fooling
> around in Squeak is pretty easy. There are lots of beginner's documents,
> there is Etoys, etc. Making the jump from apprentice to master--or even
> Journeyman, for that matter, is much, much harder. Squeak is a lot of big
> bites (even Etoys is a big bite if you hope to understand the system in
> the Smalltalk sense). I have actually found this to be true of Smalltalk
> since I started with it (over ten years ago!).

I put it to you that it is actually not that easy to get started with
Squeak. Yes, there are lot's of beginner's tutorials, but nothing
cohesive, some effort is required to sort things out. And let's not
understime the shock of the first encounter with Squeak: its UI is
*nothing* like what most comers from other languages  are used to.
This, and the garish colors it used to use, was what turned me away
twice. I just couldn't make sense of it. Now, this might just be me,
but I suspect it's not.
 
> But look: Stéphane Ducasse responded to you. He's working on traits, he's
> involved in the site redesign, he's authored a book based on Squeak that

Which I have bought :-)

> people are clamoring for a sequel to (waves at Stéphane :-))--should he do
> it? Looking at the people who are best qualified to explain what's going
> on and they've all got full plates.
> 
> Which leaves stuff like that to thee and me. Personally, I'm still
> studying. (I'm writing stuff, too, but nothing I'm ready for others to
> read, yet.)

That is why I think Squeak needs clear leadership. Someone does need
to worry about the big picture, and I do believe there is more than
one doing it, it just needs to be visible.
 
> To add to the confusion, Squeak's a moving target: We have traits, Tweak,
> Spoon and Croquet all in the offing, just to name a few.
> 
> But I don't think anything's going to get done to make these things
> clearer as long as the burden for explaining stuff is all on the shoulders
> of the same people whose job it is to move things forward. (The psychology
> is wrong, for one thing: Where you or I see what is, their attention is on
> what shall be.)
> 
>