On Jan 30, 2008 10:38 AM, Gary Chambers <gazzaguru2 at btinternet.com> wrote:

> Well, despite what has been said here we at Pinesoft are (successfully)
> devloping commercial applications with Squeak.

Congratulations -- that's good to see! We need more successes. Where can one
download your UI widgets?
Laurence

>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org
> [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org]On Behalf Of
> Laurence
> Rozier
> Sent: 30 January 2008 3:33 PM
> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> Subject: Re: Promoting Squeak/Smalltalk
>
>
>
>
>
> 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."
> Agreed.
>
> 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
> wasn't. 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.
>
> Laurence
>
>
>
>
>
> Colin
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20080130/9e305e0b/attachment.htm