Squeak for the masses? [was: primitiveApplyToFromTo]
J J
azreal1977 at hotmail.com
Mon Sep 18 19:27:39 UTC 2006
>From: "Ralph Johnson" <johnson at cs.uiuc.edu>
>Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
>list<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers
>list"<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
>Subject: Re: Squeak for the masses? [was: primitiveApplyToFromTo]
>Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 05:42:39 -0500
>
>Smalltalk in general, and Squeak in particular, is no better at very
>large applications than other languages. Its lack of modularity can
>make it worse. Where it shines is when it allows a system that would
>otherwise need 50 people to be built with a small number.
>
>There have been a number of Smalltalk projects with dozens, sometimes
>hundreds, of people on them. None have been successful. On large
>projects, politics and management issues overwhelm technical decisions
>and the value of Smalltalk gets lost. If you can keep the group of
>developers small then the technical advantages of Smalltalk can
>dominate.
>
Why is this? Is there something that could be identified and fixed to make
it
more usable by larger groups? It has monticello for group work. What does
it need? I
can't believe this is not a fixable problem.
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|