goran at krampe.se writes:
> Markus Gaelli <gaelli at emergent.de> wrote:
> > Count me in.
> > Markus
> 
> Ok! So I counted 4-5 people. Two questions:
> 
> 1. Would it be a real problem if you were instead forced to use the
> Squeakland image etc?
> 
> 2. Are you committed in the extent that you would actually join an eToys
> team making it loadable? Juan has already shown that it can be ripped
> out - next step would be making it loadable I presume.
> 
> regards, Göran


I use Squeak for presenting material, and EToys is nice for that.  It
is useful for connecting different parts of the screen together so
that if you click in one place, then something happens in another
place.  EToys makes it easy.

With raw Smalltalk it is harder, especially because it is a little
harder to reference a morph from within another morph.  You have to
use global variables, or you have to name your morphs and do things
like "World morphNamed: 'blah'".  You have to make up class names for
a lot of little one-off objects.

For these presentations, I would much rather use the developer's
version of Squeak.  Frequently I write Smalltalk code in conjunction
with the presentation, which is precisely what the developer's version
is good at.  Further, when I am lucky, I get to *present* a
Smalltalk-based tool, which will surely have been developed in Squeak
proper.

All this said, one ultimately has to face the limits of our resources.
If Squeakland folks do not want to do their own modularization effort,
and they do not even want to track the community-maintained version of
Squeak, then the community-maintained version should split ways I
guess, no matter the loss to both sub-communities.

-Lex