Igor Stasenko wrote:
> But what i don't like is, that in 95% cases, using such tool built on
> top of JVM, and focused on interoperating with java means, that any
> developer who might want to work with it should have bold experience
> in both areas - smalltalk and java to be successful.

It depends what the developer want to do. Let's say I build a "HyperCard"
like system on top of it. Consider:
http://www.mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.03/03.10/HyperCardProgramming/index.html
"Hypercard appears superficialy as a simple program because most of its
structure and functionality is hidden from the user. There are 5 user levels
within Hypercard. The top most level, and easiest to use, is Browsing. This
allows the user to navigate through Stacks and look at information but not
to add or modify it. The next two levels Typing and Painting allow the user
to add or modify written and graphic information. The last two levels are
Authoring and Scripting. Authoring allows use of the Field and Button tools
and Power Keys (short Cuts). The Scripting level allows full use of the
Hypercard programming language called Hypertalk, and the use of instant
commands called “Blind Typing”."

So, one might be able to do a lot without learning either Smalltalk or Java.
And then one might only need to learn more as one's desires increase to do
more complex tasks. Obviously you are right that one need to learn both
Smalltalk and Java to be *really* successful as a hard-core developer, but
that might only be 1% of the users who need or want to do that.

Certainly in Squeak-as-it-is you can do things with eToys or editing text
without knowing Smalltalk coding.

> And, by raising the demands, what skills developer should have to be
> able to work with it, you effectively increase training time, and
> raise costs of development on such platform.
> It's okay , for me, for being paid $1000 for an application which
> putting 'Hello word' on screen, after half-year of study of new
> platform. But i don't think that there is many people in the world who
> will pay me such sum for that :)

In the corporate world, it's always an issue of investment (and risk) versus
reward. There are a lot of Java programmers out there. If one of them can
spend a few weeks learning a new software library and make valuable results,
then it may be a very good investment. Something like 10% of worldwide IT
budgets are spent on training. IT worldwide is a trillion dollar (US)
industry (most spent on bespoke custom in-house solutions not shrinkwrap
software), so that is like 100 billion dollars (US) annual budget to help
people learn this new system (if it was popular. :-) OK, so maybe only 0.01%
might be spent on learning this new system at first even if it was terrific,
but that would still be US$10 million a year for training in it. At US$100K
per person typical annual costs for a big corporation, that's about one
thousand person months a year in the worldwide IT budget.

But personally, I see this more as a tool for use in education and in my own
personal free projects. But I didn't think it would hurt much to show people
how they might get some financial benefit out of it in theory down the road.
:-) But maybe it could hurt? So, forget about that. There is no commercial
value in it. Forget everything I said about that. It's just fun and useful
for me. :-)

--Paul Fernhout