The leaders (was Re: Smalltalk and Self)

Doug Way dway at mailcan.com
Mon Sep 5 05:08:48 UTC 2005


On Sat, 3 Sep 2005 01:26:23 -0400, "Victor Rodriguez"
<victor.palique at gmail.com> said:
> ...
> Quite frankly, as a newcomer to Squeak, I find the project to be a
> mess. I don't mean to offend anybody, it is obvious that there is
> talented and devoted people working on Squeak. However, the website's
> latest entry in "Where is Squeak Headed?" is for 2000, and if you were
> to believe it, you would think Alan Kay et al are still working at
> Disney.
> 
> The wiki is not much better either, and the best example comes from
> the future of Squeak page: "The fact that there isn't a more recent
> update does not imply that squeak is abandoned." Rats! It's a wiki!
> Why can't someone write something more than that for 2004-2005?
> 
> I wonder how many newcomers find this, and simply move on. I did it
> twice. It is all pretty disheartening.

Alright, your post pushed me over the edge... I recently obtained access
to the original squeak.org pages, and I just deleted the obsolete
"Entering 2000" links.  They're now gone. :)  I put some new links under
the "About" section in the left navigation area ("What is Squeak",
"History", "Community"), which are should be more obsolescence-proof.

I know we're still waiting for the brand new website pages, but these
are just the minimal changes needed for the old pages to remove the
obviously obsolete/misleading information.

I also updated the "Future of Squeak" page on the swiki so that it
references Goran's most recent Report (from June) for current
information.  (It's not necessarily a look far into the future, but it's
still a lot better than saying "Squeak is not abandoned, really!")

The original 1998/1999/2000 information from squeak.org is still
available on the "Future of Squeak" page on the swiki.

- Doug



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list