Lex Spoon wrote on 10 Nov 2006 12:18:41 -0800
> From: Lex Spoon <lex at cc.gatech.edu>
> Subject: Re: The Weekly Juan #4: "Smalltalk, Direct Manipulation and End User Programming"
> To: squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> received-spf: none (www30.baggio.com: domain at lists.squeakfoundation.org does not designate permitted sender hosts)
> reply-to: The general-purpose Squeak developers list <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> 
> Jecel Assumpcao Jr <jecel at merlintec.com> writes:
> > Juan Vuletich wrote on Wed, 08 Nov 2006 21:55:22 -0300
> > > Besides, code based development 
> > > (i.e. not relying on the assembly of objects in a certain image) eases 
> > > team work and version tracking.
> > 
> > Here I must strongly disagree. [...] Unless you
> > had seen it yourself it is hard for you imagine how much fun this was
> > and how productive they were....
> 
> The two are not incompatible.  You can use exported code as the
> authoritative version of the code, while using an object-rich image to
> actually edit that code.
> 
> In fact, this is the *normal* way to develop in Smalltalk.  You can
> always start in a fresh image if you want.  You simply load all the
> code off the disk or out of your version control system.

Right. My programming style, however, involves creating instances and
not just code and in that case collaboration means something like
Nebraska instead of Monticello. Given the goals of the Croquet project I
imagine that I am not alone in wanting to use computers this way.

-- Jecel