On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Chris Cunnington
<smalltalktelevision at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> "1. Anyone who writes with such emotionally charged, opinionated
> language about JavaScript is unlikely to write anything of interest to
> me. Reminds me of ESPN commentators, who manage to make a bad call
> sound like a cause for WWIII, a shallow ploy designed to attract
> attention to themselves."
>
> You find my charged language unbecoming.

I thought the blog was written by David Nolen. I was not addressing you.

> "2. The debate over Smalltalk and children is pointless."
>
> Ahh, no. I think it's key. We are the only Smalltalk that is so close
> to the originators of the language. I think the intellectual atmosphere
> of Squeak may be restricted because we are so close to a cause --
> childhood education. I'd like to see a Squeak that is a small core with
> no inherent purpose. And then any project, with any purpose can be
> suddenly added to the core. For Squeak to change, I think it needs to
> be intellectually free of any cause.

I was discussing the past, not the future. And here you seem to agree
with my position, that the origins of Smalltalk, and Squeak, are
inexorably entwined with children and education.

Now, as to the future, it would be *nice* if everyone who ever
contributed something useful to Squeak kept up with new developments,
but the simple truth is that many do not. If the choice comes down to
holding Squeak back to prevent breaking old stuff vice shedding to
incompatible parts in order to advance, the only reasonable choice is
the latter. I support the concept of a small, basic image *providing*
there is a simple way for newcomers to add to the available extras.

> I'm becoming more extreme than I usually am. And loving
> every minuted of it. If that doesn't suit the community, I'm fine with that.
> I'm becoming too drugged on programming success to care.

Perhaps your passion is keeping you from understanding what others say.

-- 
Gary Dunn
Honolulu