Hey!

On 12/21/2012 10:58 PM, Ron Teitelbaum wrote:
> I’m happy with the fragmentation.  I wasn’t at the start of this
> conversation but I think I’m starting to appreciate it.  I agree that
> the goals for each are a bit different and having separated achieving
> those goals is easier.  We are building some new stuff and it seems that
> selecting the right fork for the right job “may” not have been possible
> without the split.  There are a number of new developments coming, (in
> the VM, Spoon, Seaside, Cuis, EToys, …) and it’s possible that one big
> monolithic Squeak may have made it more difficult for all.  It seems
> that we are closer to having split up the components then we had thought.
>
> I know we cannot make everyone happy.  It seems that the starting point
> which seems to me to be COG, is the common link that binds everything
> else.  Let me know if you think that is wrong.  If that is true then
> building Squeak, or Pharo, or Cuis from a single point seems like
> something that might help bring the communities back together.  Will
> Github or SmalltalkHub help to accomplish this?  If this were a goal
> would either do more than the other?

Github is nice and I applaud if we have the ability to use it. 
SmalltalkHub is on the other hand "our own puppy" and fully MC focused, 
so the advantages would typically be:

- Only Smalltalk stuff, no line noise of other things.
- MC is still a much smoother ride than mirroring to files and using 
external tools like git.
- Since we control SmalltalkHub we can tailor it for "Smalltalker needs"

Disadvantages are obvious of course, but I tend to think SmalltalkHub 
has a good spot.

> I agree with the goal, we want to be able to load a package and have it
> work and it would be nice if the dependencies were limited/managed such
> so that it will load in any fork.  Not all packages will load in every
> fork so knowing which will work beforehand is preferable.  VW is
> different since nobody expects that with some work it will run on Oinq,
> I mean Cog (my name for the vm didn’t stick).
>
> It seems to me that it doesn’t really matter.  There seems to be some
> movement behind Metacello and SmalltalkHub.  Sometimes movement is
> preferable to good ideas.  If Metacello works for Squeak and will work
> with SmalltalkHub should we not include it in Squeak to give it a
> boost?  If Squeak goes with GitHub will Pharo follow?

- Metacello indeed works for Squeak. And has done so for quite some time.

- Metacello already works with SmalltalkHub. This is because Metacello 
is simply a layer on top of Monticello so SmalltalkHub (or any other MC 
repository) needs to know about Metacello. That is a very good thing.

- I think it would be good if Squeak endorsed/considered Metacello a 
primary tool. And nothing stops us from adding better support in 
SqueakMap to deal with it.

- And finally, no. Pharo does what Pharo wants :). But Pharo is closer 
to working with github than Squeak is, given several git and github 
related efforts in the Pharo community (Dale himself too). :)

When it comes to the Pharo vs Squeak "debate" it is IMHO quite simple. 
Pharo has their own agenda and the core people are doing a lot of good 
work there. As a Smalltalker, Squeaker and Pharooner I applaud it and 
love it.

BUT... just because the Pharo project is independent doesn't mean there 
aren't lots of us straddling both (or more) camps and want to do cross 
platform tooling and libraries etc. Dale Henrichs is one such shining 
example, and he of course also covers Gemstone.

At the same time sometimes time and effort is colliding. Take for 
example my Riak binding and coding on Oak (a... kind of OODB) - I picked 
Pharo explicitly for the Riak binding and Oak too - simply because there 
was extra effort trying to be cross platform. That is something we 
simply need to live with.


> Nobody likes change but if we would all benefit from adopting some
> similar tools should we not consider doing that for the benefit of the
> entire Smalltalk community.

I would think so.

regards, Göran