Alan,

Agreed.  The name is not nearly so important as the fundamentals of a
solid Smalltalk system.  Focusing on the latter serves everyone: the
children for whom all this was started; the adults who will set them up
with something they can use; and other developers wanting to work in
Smalltalk.

If we do create a ViewPoints Smalltalk, or whatever it gets named, then
we should do it right.  Fix the gratuitous incompatibilities with other
dialects, clean up the look and (far more important) the feel of the
GUI, and arrange for the toys and the experiments to be built on top of
vs. into the core language and environment.  However, that is good
advice whether the names changes or not.

Bill




====================================
Alan Lovejoy <squeak-dev.sourcery at ...> wrote:

Squeak is not the most professional-sounding name that could have been
chosen. One very important purpose of a name is marketing, and the
name "Squeak" doesn't do that very well in a few rather important
markets. Of course, if you're marketing to children (and those who
educate them,) then Squeak is not at all a bad name.

But that's all water under the bridge at this point. Changing the
name only, in the absence of any other substantive changes, would at
best be ignored as a shameless (and not well-motivated) marketing
ploy. At worst, it would be seen as an act of desperation.

Change Squeak so that it deserves a new name. Then the new name will
be perceived as having been earned, and so will serve as an effective
marketing tool to advertise the new, improved "Open Source Smalltalk."

--Alan

Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D.
University of Florida
Department of Anesthesiology
PO Box 100254
Gainesville, FL 32610-0254

Email: bschwab at anest.ufl.edu
Tel: (352) 846-1285
FAX: (352) 392-7029