Very bad about Squeak in blogosfere

Giovanni Corriga giovanni at corriga.net
Sun Aug 19 12:42:47 UTC 2007


Il giorno dom, 12/08/2007 alle 01.09 -0700, Andreas Raab ha scritto:
> Colin Putney wrote:
> > It's stated a bit harshly, but yeah, that sounds basically accurate. The 
> > amazing thing is that, in spite of all that, Squeak is still such a 
> > wonderful platform to work with. I do use Squeak in production, and 
> > there are very few things I would trade it for.
> 
> Well, yes, but you can't deny that the guy's got a point. The 
> frustration he's expressing is something that everyone has felt over the 
> years. And while there are various plain invalid points in his post 
> (like the fact that Squeak has bugs - I'm *shocked* to hear that of 
> course and would have never started three products if I'd known that ;-) 
> the main emerging point is valid: The lack of quality and maintenance. 
> The problems he cites are all known, some of them even have fixes but 
> there isn't enough traction in the community to make this all come 
> together. And of course the forks don't exactly help because we still 
> haven't figured out how to share code across the forks and consequently 
> we have left numerous folks behind in the last versions (3.7: all those 
> people who don't want m17n; 3.8: all those people who don't want traits) 
> and absolutely no way (and interest) in re-integrating those forks.

> Leveraging those projects is what Squeak.org today is really, REALLY 
> terrible at. But it is where the majority of Squeak production code gets 
> written so if you want to get those fixes and enhancements that happen 
> in these projects you need to find a ways of integrating them.

Your idea of creating some "cross-fork" projects to mantain packages
such as Collection etc. is good. Why don't we proceed with it? I'd
gladly volunteer to help mantain some of those packages.

	Giovanni




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list