Proposal for a Squeak migration meeting

stéphane ducasse ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Thu Jul 6 15:48:22 UTC 2006


On 6 juil. 06, at 17:23, Hilaire Fernandes wrote:

> Bert Freudenberg a écrit :
>
>> Right. Because nobody from the Squeak community took on that  
>> task,  yet, so there's nobody you could have "helped". Also, there  
>> was no  "decision" yet that Tweak actually should replace Morphic.  
>> There are  many cool features in Tweak, I personally like its  
>> ideas a lot, but  there are also people who dislike it for various  
>> reasons. The first  step would be that more people from the  
>> community actually try to do  something serious in Tweak. Only  
>> then could you estimate if it is
>
> People will not do serious things with Tweak as long as they do not  
> have a middle term visibility about Tweak. Like it or not, this is  
> how it work. An expression of interest from the Tweak developper to  
> get Tweak mainstream in Squeak could of course change that. But it  
> seems, as I learn it recently from other email of the thread, that  
> it is not the case.

+1
>
>
>> actually worth-while to switch to Tweak as the default UI.
>> Also, mind you, it took Morphic quite some time until it became  
>> the  default UI. Several people worked full-time on it. That's  
>> also a  reason why the "Tweak developers" don't take on such a  
>> task lightly.
>
> It is understandable as resource is now tight. However it is not an  
> excuse to not communicate, which seems to be the problem now.

+1
>
> Tweak is developped with Squeak for Squeak, its integration  
> mainstream in Squeak can only be done in collaboration with the  
> Tweak developper.
> Steph suggested me a few days ago, to play with Tweak as a base for  
> further development. I look at the tutorial, it was nice, I love  
> many of the developer features comming with Tweak. Tweak introduced  
> new paradigm as the annotation. This new features are changes to  
> the core Squeak, IMHO to integrate thus core modifcation in Squeak  
> a close collaboration is needed between the Tweak developer and the  
> Squeak integrator. Without communication between both it is even  
> not a good idea to try to do so, remember resources is tight for  
> every one.
>
>
>> Lighten up you french guys, you're gonna win the soccer world  
>> cup,  right? ;-)
>> Seriously, if someone came up with the idea to switch to Qt (just  
>> to  name some UI), would you expect the Qt developers to lead that  
>> effort?
>
> Hum, I may say your are mixing two different problems.
>
> One is integrating a framework written in Squeak into Squeak, were  
> collaboration is needed between the framework and Squeak developers.
>
> The second one is writting a Qt binding for Squeak, which is indeed  
> abolutely not the problem of the Qt developers.
>
> In the first one, you have to integrate in Squeak additionnal  
> Squeak code, which  can cause trouble. For example the framework  
> did some needed modification in the core Squeak, and thus  
> modification may need to be adjusted both in the framework and the  
> core Squeak. In that case communication and collaboration between  
> the Squeak and framework developpers is mandatory.
>
> In the second case, writting a Qt binding. It is unlikely, no it is  
> impossible, you will need to change the Qt library to get working  
> binding. More likely collaboration with the VM developper will be  
> needed.
>
> See you in Berlin ;-)
>
> Hilaire
>




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list