Re: [Squeak-fr] Re: Traduction squeak en français

[Serge Stinckwich]

Le 30 avr. 06 à 11:23, Serge Stinckwich a écrit :

>
> Le 30 avr. 06 à 11:02, francois schnell a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On 29/04/06, Pascal Grossé <pascal.grosse at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Bonjour :)
>>
>>  Même si python
>> est un langage très dynamique, il est loin d'atteindre le degré
>> d'interactivité de squeak, où on voit directement le résultat  
>> graphique de
>> ses commandes (et je n'avais pas vraiment envie d'écrire  
>> l'infrastructure
>> pour le faire en python).
>>
>> Cela arrivera peut-être un jour:
>> http://mail.python.org/pipermail/edu-sig/2006-April/006214.html
>
>
> Oui, cela me fait un peu chié (désolé) d'avoir une réimplémentation  
> de Squeak en Python ...
> Que d'énergie perdue !
> Je vois un danger pour Squeak comme il est dit ici : http:// 
> mail.python.org/pipermail/edu-sig/2006-April/006226.html
> L'intérêt que certains pourraient voir dans la réimplémentation de  
> Squeak est que Python utilise une véritable licence libre (c'est-à- 
> dire considéré comme telle par tout le monde). On retombe alors sur  
> les problèmes de licence de Squeak ... Pas de nouvelles sur ce  
> front, Stéphane ?

Je me réponds à moi-même.
Il y a un message intéressant de Paul Fernhout (qui visiblement  
faisait parti de la communauté Squeak auparavant) sur la liste Python  
où il parle du projet de réimplémenter Squeak en Python ici : http:// 
mail.python.org/pipermail/edu-sig/2006-April/006180.html

En fait, il dit pleins de choses bien sur Squeak et voila sa  
conclusion :

"I've said a lot of nice things about Squeak, but I'll add here why I  
use
Python instead. As a Squeak negative, a big issue for me (others will
disagree) is the license and licensing history. Anything that Disney
touches scares me for example, and I don't think that stuff developed  
when
the Squeak team was at Disney is clearly licensed (I kept raising the
Python licensing problems example (CNRI claiming it was never formally
licensed), and that was just dealing with a non-profit!).
    http://www.python.org/download/releases/1.6/license_faq/
The Squeak license even as it is isn't formally "open source" or "free"
for several reasons. I could have fixed Squeak's technical issues  
(and it
has several I have not mentioned), but I could never get past the  
license,
so after it seemed no one "in charge" cared much about fixing it they  
way
I wanted it fixed, or alternatively community interest in starting a  
from
scratch reimplementation, I moved on. On Python's plus side, it has  
better
and more libraries than Squeak, has a bigger community, has a C-like
syntax the masses find more acceptable (I still prefer Smalltalk's  
keyword
syntax though, along with blocks in control structures, though I like
indentation), it has a relatively good licensing history, and it has
widespread commercial use (good for consulting). Python misses many of
Smalltalk's development tools overall, but those are more easily  
remedied
by a programmer than changing a license set in stone by two big
corporations, creating a trap which could spring shut at any moment.  
As I
say, people disagree with my perception of the license. Squeak's still a
neat system, and for most people seems free enough. But Python has had
more traction and really is free."


A méditer !

--                                                         oooo
Dr. Serge Stinckwich                                     OOOOOOOO
Université de Caen>CNRS UMR 6072>GREYC>MAD               OOESUGOO
http://purl.org/net/SergeStinckwich                       oooooo
Smalltalkers do: [:it | All with: Class, (And love: it)]   \  /
                                                             ##