>
> I can back you up there. I've been looking at smalltalk for a new  
> project, completely redeveloping a legacy character mode database  
> application, and I can tell you, Squeak is not the place to learn  
> Smalltalk, at least for me, who is a bit of a control freak, I must  
> admit.

I do not understand why but not judging you. Bad luck.
Try VisualWorks: the tutorial is good, the doc is full of example,  
there is an active community and this is less cuting edge, even
if some squeak tools (monticello, shout, ecompletion) are much better  
than their equivalent in VW.
Read Smalltalk by Example on my website....http://www.iam.unibe.ch/ 
~ducasse/

> There's just way to much stuff to deal with. Sure I should be able  
> to just leave all that other stuff in the image that I'm not using,  
> and use what I need, but somehow I just can't. I did scour the web  
> and wiki and found the, make Squeak smaller info, and I tried some  
> of it, and the image actually got larger. That's not right! hehe

Strange because normally this should not happen.
Explain us a bit more what you read and what you did.

> I'm not quite understanding at this stage (and that is a VERY  
> newbie state), if Smalltalk is so wonderful, why does it appear so  
> difficult to clean up an image and only have what you want. I am  
> starting to understand that Smalltalk is different, and almost  
> organic, and can conjecture that things can become interdependent  
> real quick without you noticing, but still it shouldn't be a  
> requirement.

The language has nothing to do with that.
Give me 4 good engineers during one year and we recreate a complete  
clean system.
Smalltalk is simple.

Now for Squeak you should see that you get a system
     - that was in experimental mode for some years
     - focus of SqC was experimentation
     - Squeak had Morphic and MVC two UI frameworks
     - there are a lot of clients that rely on the having the  
behavior as it now
         etoy, Squeakland, Tweak, companies developing in Smalltalk
     - so big-bang is not an option. There are changes appearing in  
3.9a that I did nearly one year ago (I think
     this was more efficient to recode them now to make sure that  
they are right).
     - Now without people working full time on the project with the  
idea of making it better, cleaner, faster
     then this is taking time. We will propose a solution via the  
squeakFoundation soon. I hope at the end of next
     week.

> If there is no reason that I currently don't understand why squeak  
> couldn't be pared back, I'm willing to give it a go, but I'll need  
> pointers. I can't think of a better way to learn how it all fits  
> together. I have some ideas from my research so far, but the the  
> whole image thing, if not completely "black" box, is still quite  
> dark grey!

Ask questions to the mailing-list and you will get answers.

> If someone is willing to mentor me on what I need to know to try to  
> clean up an image, I'm willing to learn, and put in the work, and  
> to document the process somehow and give that back to the  
> community. I'm sure that would make a good resourse for new comers  
> to understand how it all fits together, and might attract more  
> control freaks like me, if they knew how to get a tidy, manageable  
> squeak image. :)

For now I would suggest you:
     load Monticello
     shout
     and code your classes and your TESTS

Once you are done and feel comfortable with it then I'm sure that we  
will find some task for you :)



>
> Please don't take this as any sort of criticism of squeak, or the  
> people working on it; just the impressions of someone trying to  
> learn smalltalk. I'm *very* excited by the promise of smalltalk,  
> and I can see that Squeak is very "cool" (yes I am a geek). :)

Welcome. Really read Smalltalk by example to start on my web page

http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~ducasse/FreeBooks.html

>
> While I'm in feedback mode, I will concur with the person who  
> commented on the wiki being out of date: that is a definite  
> discouragement to looking further. When the "where are we going" is  
> 5 years old, one wonders where they got lost, or when they lost  
> interest. I understand there is a new website on the go, so if  
> attracting people to squeak is important, I'd say move that one up  
> the list of priorities a bit.

Thanks this is important that people like you tell us that. SHOUT IT  
PLEASE !!!!!
We had some discussions about the necessity of having a new website  
since YYYYEEEEARSS ago, when I arrive to squeak I said the same
and some squeakers are blind.
So please kick us, this will help us to blast the negative ones.... :)



Stef



>
> Jonathan.
>
>