Promoting Squeak/Smalltalk

Andreas Raab andreas.raab at
Thu Jan 31 18:27:25 UTC 2008

Laurence Rozier wrote:
> This is true and you make many other good observations. Since these tend 
> to apply within just the world of Squeak and there exists a spectrum of 
> funded entities it would seem that the prospects for improving the 
> situation are better there. In order for that to happen some small group 
> of people will have to decide that it's in their collective interests to 
> establish and maintain a Squeak kernel. The only way for the Squeak 
> Foundation to do this is to convince at least 3-4 of the highly visible 
> projects - say Squeakland, Croquet, Seaside to commit to a common 
> foundation. 

But does *anyone* even have the slightest idea what that would entail? 
It sounds great as a theory but in practice I have never seen a setup 
that has worked across significantly different code bases. The only 
working granularity in my experience is the image and in practice that 
means that unless these projects share a common image (which I find 
highly unlikely given that it would imply decisions about, for example, 
the scope of Morphic supported in it) it seems almost impossible to get 
something like what you are describing going.

   - Andreas

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list