Multi-core Futures was: Promoting Squeak/Smalltalk
laurence.rozier at gmail.com
Wed Jan 30 15:54:52 UTC 2008
If one is seeking to be a serious software
the current size of the Squeak community is not an adequate
The Smalltalk community seems to have given up on this larger vision but it
may prove to be the most viable way to a vibrant future. Imagine a future
where some descendant of Croquet islands is baked into the fabric of
That is my primary motivator for expanding the Squeak community base.
On Jan 30, 2008 10:33 AM, Laurence Rozier <laurence.rozier at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 30, 2008 4:20 AM, Colin Putney <cputney at wiresong.ca> wrote:
> > On 29-Jan-08, at 9:48 PM, Laurence Rozier wrote:
> > > While I don't agree, I also don't see anything inherently wrong or
> > > bad about this view - to each his own. However, it isn't consistent
> > > with the original goals of Smalltalk nor the "programming for the
> > > rest of us" statement currently on the Squeak About page. I know
> > > there are others who don't want to see the community expand very
> > > much and if that is a consensus then the About page ought to be
> > > changed to reflect it. Although Smalltalk as an SDK is a stretch in
> > > my view, Croquet makes clear who its audience is - truth in
> > > advertising. If the Squeak community really doesn't want Squeak to
> > > be for "everyone" that ought to be clear up front.
> > Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating that we make the community
> > into some kind of elitist club where outsiders aren't welcome. I
> > really like the way this community treats newcomers, and I wouldn't
> > want to change that. I'm a recent arrival myself!
> > What I *am* saying is that I don't think we should be trying to
> > achieve "popularity."
> > We should put our efforts into developing our
> > technology and empowering the community.
> I agree - the question is what is needed to empower a community that
> includes "everyone"?
> > If that happens to attract
> > new members, great! If not, that's fine too. The community we have
> > today is large enough to be successful.
> I suppose it depends on what the definition of "success" is. The constant
> and justified "million euros" comments are a clear reminder that there are
> unmed needs. In 2000, I had to hire a Smalltalker for an internet startup. I
> interviewed or had conversations a good number of very experienced folk all
> of whom really wanted to be making their living from Smalltalk. It was hard
> then and still is. Yes Seaside and Croquet are opening doors but do the math
> - that's not an abundance of positions even for the most talented
> Squeakers. Getting a Squeak based project funded inside a company(large or
> small) is also hard. As a result Smalltalk and Squeak will continue to
> survive well into the future, but most of the people attracted to it(along
> with their families, friends and co-workers) will not get to use it broadly.
> We'll continue to use software that just sucks or is a poor imitation which
> is sad because it doesn't have to be that way and for a few short years it
> There are ways out of the current mess, but people first have to acknowledge
> the mess and/or there has to be a significant wave of new adopters. Then the
> community has to be willing to make the difficult tradeoffs needed to climb
> out of the quicksand. In my view, survival is a necessary ingredient for
> success not the goal.
> > Colin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Squeak-dev