Re: [squeak-dev] Squeak Oversight Board minutes – 10/18/11
doc at doconnel.f9.co.uk
Thu Oct 20 08:25:07 UTC 2011
On 19/10/11 15:53, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> Derek> What's wrong with Linux? Squeak 4.2 + CogVM running fine here
> Derek> on Ubuntu 9.10
> The problem we discussed is that the packages with most linux
> distributions are *not* the CogVM yet (rightfully so). So we are
> trying to address the issue of "get vm from packages, get image from
> If that's a smaller issue than we should worry about... as in,
> everyone who would be downloading 4.3 is smart enough to also pick up
> the CogVM as well, then maybe we can just blast forward. Thoughts?
Anyone using Squeak is ipso facto "smart enough" :-) The real issue is
are they sufficiently informed and can safe-guards put in place if
required (hence the suggestion in another email to auto-back-up an image).
My initial response was to the implication that Linux presented some
sort of barrier to progress. Linux packaging is not a prerequisite for
installing other software, it's an option that helps manage the process
and not always a gaurentee of stability. Packaging is definitely not a
restriction on what users can do or what software creators can supply.
Official package maintainers do a great job and should be fully
supported but the reality is that packages will often lag latest
developments. The curious end-user, who may be new to Squeak, should
have an easy way to explore regardless (even if just a zipped vm, image
and start-up script for dumping in a single folder). So, while I
appreciate the problem/s mentioned here and elsewhere I don't think they
should hold up progress and nothing should be delayed due to packaging
requirements. I'm not a packager but isn't it also true that between
major releases, aprt from bug fixes, packages typically get updated when
end-users request it?
Another reason to take this approach is the general perception and/or
lack of current knowledge of people who "know" Smalltalk. Here's a
recent quote from the Raspberry-Pi forums (links below) from a general
discussion of the pro's and con's of various programming languages...
"Smalltalk has been covered by MarkSmith and about the only other "con"
I can think of is the relative slowness of the extra indirection caused
by message passing rather than direct function calling."
Anyone reading that will think all Smalltalks are slow and therefore not
worthy of consideration. Best way to overcome misconceptions is to
provide concrete evidence to the contrary.
More information about the Squeak-dev