Making Squeak more accessible and used - reversing the trend

> Hello all,
> I feel compelled to add my point of view due to recent discussions on this
> list; I have kept quiet for a long time as I'm not a professional programmer
> and haven't contributed code so my point of view doesn't hold much weight
> but I hope to be expressing a wish that other silent readers have - if not,
> I'll quietly go away and see what other solutions can do for me.
> First, some background: I was first introduced to computers as a child, on
> Apple ][ machines at my father's work, on which I learned to program in
> basic, making little games. I then progressed to a ZX81 at home and then a
> spectrum, all of which there was an easy route into programming. I then
> spent around 15 years without a computer and when I finally got a PC was
> horrified - I had a computer which (out of the box) I couldn't use to
> compute!
> I have since dirtied my hands with all sorts of programming languages and it
> took a long time before I stumbled over squeak. Squeak has been an amazing
> and enlightening adventure for me but I have never really used it. The thing
> that has kept me interested even though I don't use squeak (except to
> explore squeak itself) is Alan Kay's dynabook vision. This is how I'd like
> to use my computer (or even better, my pda.)
> Now in the next part of this mail I'm going to say all sorts of things that
> I'm sure many squeak developers will disagree with. I'm aware that squeak is
> being pulled in several directions simultaneously and everyone has their
> good reasons for doing so but I have to put my viewpoint across and deal
> with the flames. If any of this sounds blunt or naive, I'm sorry.
> There are many RAD ways of building native applications - wxPython, wxRuby,
> wxPerl... You get the idea. I'm sure wxGNUSmalltalk would be possible. For
> me, the beauty and the power of squeak is in the direct manipulation of
> objects.
> I would love to see Tweak in the main image. There is a lot of talk about
> cleaning up morphic and the huge effort it would require. Would it not be a
> better idea to spend that effort getting Tweak functional in the main image?
> I'm sure there are many ways that the etoys environment and tile scripting
> could be expanded upon to create more advanced programming possibilities for
> the non-expert like myself.
> One way in which this type of environment could be useful to the layperson
> (and I have many more ideas which I'll save for a later date) would be the
> types of things that people generally use (and abuse) spreadsheets for.
> For example, if we had a list that we could pull from a flap and then could
> produce a tile that sums all the elements or have a 'collect' tile that
> could be used to make a little script to add 15% to the values and populate
> a new list... These morphs (or tweaks) could be embedded into a bookmorph
> (booktweak?) and easily presented in an attractive manner. One could even
> use the animation capabilities that etoys already has to create motivational
> aids - a small drawing of an athlete who will reach the finishing line at
> the other side of the screen if the numbers add up right (those numbers
> could be your weight, the money you've earned, the amount of cigarettes
> you've smoked..)
> Anyway, I'm sure a lot of you have thought about the dynabook and about
> adult etoys and fantasised about what it could do. I just worry, maybe
> unjustly so that squeak is being developed by such competent programmers
> that the needs or wants of people like me who aren't programmers or maybe
> have it as a hobby gets overlooked. I think that an adult etoys environment
> would be the killer app (environment or whatever you would call it) for
> squeak.
> Many thanks to all of you for such an amazing piece of software,
> James
>
>
>

>From: Brad Fuller <[hidden email]>
>Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
>list<[hidden email]>
>To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
>list<[hidden email]>
>Subject: Re: Making Squeak more accessible and used - reversing the trend
>Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2007 15:01:59 -0800
>
>Yep, if you want to move beyond the status quo and provide tools that seem
>odd at first blush to users, it's going to be a tad tougher sell. as
>always:
>
>"It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry
>out, nor more doubtful of success, nor dangerous to handle, than to
>initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all
>those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all
>those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising
>partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their favor;
>and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe in
>anything new until they have had actual experiences of it. Thus, it
>arises that on every opportunity for attacking the reformer, his
>opponents do so with the zeal of partisans, the others only defend him
>half-heartedly, so that between them he runs great danger."
>
>1513 AD Machiavelli
>
>
>Giuseppe Luigi Punzi wrote:
>>Hi all,
>>
>>I disagree with native windows. One of the features of Squeak is get an
>>image and load it on any OS without changes with a proper vm. And I love
>>this as much as I love the Smalltalk/Squeak way to develop.
>>
>>The thing could be change with the windows feel. More like a normal window
>>but with the squeak features.
>>
>>As I said one day:
>>http://weeklysqueak.wordpress.com/2006/10/18/squeak-toy-or-instrument/
>>
>>I'm founding my company, and talking with my girlfriend, I told her about
>>make my projects on smalltalk. She told me:
>>
>>  "all the benefits if you use squeak are very good but, what happen with
>>the end-user? The end-user have fear about changes. You can make a ERP
>>with Squeak?" Yes I told it. "And looks like other apps?" No "Then will be
>>very difficult to sell"
>>
>>I told her about XProgramming, OO benefits, blablabla all very beautiful
>>but as She saids,
>>
>>"If you give an app to an end-user and this app don't looks like a normal
>>app, this end-user doesn't want it. He will not use the app because look
>>strange."
>>
>>I have the same opinion I expressed on October 2006. Is good if Squeak
>>have a different look, for the actual look exists SqueakLand with her own
>>image. I don't talk about gray apps (as Diego calls it). But a lot of
>>widgets inside the image, with a business look could be interesting.
>>
>>Develop over squeak is fun, and this is important, but, the end-user
>>doesn't understand about develop fun. "He" wants work, not develop, and
>>"he" don't want "coloured windows" because disconcern it. I pay my bills
>>thanks to the app's I develop. If I can't sell my app's, then I can't pay
>>my bills. I don't like this way, but is the reality. The end-user is the
>>boss, and you must do your work as "he" wants, because "he" pay.
>>
>>If you offer an app in Squeak, and other company offer the same app, but
>>developed over VB, .NET, Java etc.., he will choose the VB,.NET,Java
>>project because the other is strange and doesn't look an app.
>>
>>Now, some people will be answer with "Komanche+Seaside=Web Interface" but,
>>as I said, (I think) the web interface is not the solution, not all the
>>end-users likes web interface to work (a point of sale on a supermarket
>>for example), and remember, "he" pay.
>>
>>Is sad. All is around money, yes, but is the reality and, I think, all of
>>us, wants work with Squeak using it on commercial projects for our own
>>benefit, and not use it only on home to invest.
>>
>>There are "solutions" (¿solution?) like wxSqueak, but seems not continued.
>>
>>IMHO, If Squeak change the look&feel, could be the Smalltalk flavour thath
>>make shadow to VisualWorks. And we, the developers (and users), don't need
>>a pink debug window to fun developing.
>>
>>Well, this is only my pesonal opinion (not the solution) about this
>>(again). My 2 cents.
>>
>>El Sábado, 3 de Febrero de 2007 22:00, J J escribió:
>>>I have been thinking about this stuff as well.
>>>
>>>Vista is out, and the places I read think Microsoft may have opened the
>>>door for some competition (due to trying to force DRM down everyone's
>>>throats, etc.).  If Steve Jobs goes for it, Micheal Dell said he is
>>>interested in shipping Dells with Mac OS on them.  Some people are even
>>>saying Linux may gain some big market share.
>>>
>>>So what this means to me is, people will be looking for an easy way to
>>>make
>>>GUI applications on these platforms.  I know nearly nothing about the MAC
>>>world, but in Linux the only RAD tool I am aware of is a code generator
>>>for
>>>GTK.
>>>
>>>Now in Smalltalk we always say (and I believe) that we can be much more
>>>productive then other languages.  So I think it may be time to prove it.
>>>
>>>I don't know how many of you have used Dolphin, but it is an amazing
>>>system. It only works on windows, but the GUI is wonderful and looks just
>>>like a normal windows app.  And what is more, after you build an
>>>application, it has tools to automatically package up the application you
>>>write and turn it into a MSI kind of package.  This includes turning
>>>certain parts into DLL's so that if you write multiple applications they
>>>can share libraries, etc., etc..
>>>
>>>And I think Dolphin is currently the perfect system for building native
>>>windows apps.  You get as much, or more speed then a VB environment but
>>>vastly more power.
>>>
>>>What would be nice, is if Squeak had something like this.  A great GUI
>>>builder (maybe it has already) and some way that we could use some system
>>>to turn an application we write into a native Linux/Mac OS package.  
>>>Well,
>>>native looking.  If you check what Dolphin installs you would find a
>>>smalltalk interpreter in there.  The payback with the installer is, we
>>>can
>>>then submit "binaries" to distributions like Debian for any applications
>>>we
>>>make.  The end user doesn't need to know it is Smalltalk.  If we end up
>>>becoming a big player in the Linux and/or MAC world, people will be
>>>*begging* us to share how we are doing it.
>>>
>>>With a rapid GUI development tool bound with the productivity of the
>>>Smalltalk language and the platform independence of Squeak we could have
>>>quite an advantage in the native UI space.  And I understand the concerns
>>>about making apps that do things that already exist, but what we have to
>>>remember is that all applications change all the time.  What a Word
>>>processor looked like 5 years ago is a little different then what they
>>>look
>>>like today and will be still more different in another 5.  Not
>>>drastically,
>>>but new features are being added.  All we have to do is keep up with the
>>>features they have and add our own here and there.  To take a page from
>>>Paul Graham's book, when ever a "competitor" adds a feature, we can have
>>>it
>>>the next day.
>>>
>>>Think about Mozilla for example.  They are pretty advanced, but it is an
>>>enormous code base in C.  They can't add new core features quickly.
>>>
>>>I still believe the web will play an even larger roll in the future then
>>>now, but we will always have to have *some* native apps (a browser if
>>>nothing else).  And if MAC gets a bigger percentage of the desktop market
>>>share (and maybe even Linux), this could open up an opportunity that
>>>wasn't
>>>there before.  And I don't think anyone can move to cover that gap as
>>>quick
>>>as Smalltalk can.
>>>
>>>>From: Brad Fuller <[hidden email]>
>>>>Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
>>>>list<[hidden email]>
>>>>To: [hidden email]
>>>>Subject: Making Squeak more accessible and used - reversing the trend
>>>>Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:05:01 -0800
>>>>
>>>>All,
>>>><sniped>
>>>_________________________________________________________________
>>>
>>> >From predictions to trailers, check out the MSN Entertainment Guide to
>>>the
>>>
>>>Academy Awards®
>>>http://movies.msn.com/movies/oscars2007/?icid=ncoscartagline1
>>
>
>
>--
>brad fuller
>www.bradfuller.com
>

> Brad Fuller wrote:
>>  Thus, it
>> arises that on every opportunity for attacking the reformer, his
>> opponents do so with the zeal of partisans, the others only defend him
>> half-heartedly, so that between them he runs great danger."
>>  1513 AD Machiavelli
>
> this is very true of any truggle for power, like in politics, economy,  
> and war.
>
> but I fail to see any need for such struggle in computer science. Squeak  
> is an open source project and as such does not have to fight anything.  
> if we just make it as good as we can, according to our own elitist and  
> knowledgeable idea of "good", then that is enough.

> Brad,
>
> The colossal misunderstanding of our time is the assumption that
> insight will work with people who are unmotivated to change.
> Communication does not depend on syntax, or eloquence, or rhetoric, or
> articulation but on the emotional context in which the message is being
> heard. People can only hear you when they are moving toward you, and
> they are not likely to when your words are pursuing them. Even the
> choicest words lose their power when they are used to overpower.
> Attitudes are the real figures of speech. (Edwin H. Friedman)
>
> More to the point, give the user what they want, though not necessarily
> the way they want it.  Then gradually show them a better way.

> Brad Fuller wrote:
>>  Thus, it
>> arises that on every opportunity for attacking the reformer, his
>> opponents do so with the zeal of partisans, the others only defend him
>> half-heartedly, so that between them he runs great danger."
>>
>> 1513 AD Machiavelli
>
> this is very true of any truggle for power, like in politics, economy,
> and war.
>
> but I fail to see any need for such struggle in computer science. Squeak
> is an open source project and as such does not have to fight anything.
> if we just make it as good as we can, according to our own elitist and
> knowledgeable idea of "good", then that is enough.
>
> I do not see the point in having anyone to convince, nor any fight to
> figh, nor any product to sell. let's just be free of struggle,
> intelligent and creative. let's just build a beautiful piece of
> software, end even if it takes 50 years for its quality to be somewhat
> largely recognized (as it happens to Lisp nowadays), well what is the
> problem ?
>
>
> Stef
>
>
>
>

>From: "Bill Schwab" <[hidden email]>
>Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
>list<[hidden email]>
>To: <[hidden email]>
>Subject: Re: Making Squeak more accessible and used - reversing thetrend
>Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:36:46 -0500
>
>Brad,
>
>The colossal misunderstanding of our time is the assumption that
>insight will work with people who are unmotivated to change.
>Communication does not depend on syntax, or eloquence, or rhetoric, or
>articulation but on the emotional context in which the message is being
>heard. People can only hear you when they are moving toward you, and
>they are not likely to when your words are pursuing them. Even the
>choicest words lose their power when they are used to overpower.
>Attitudes are the real figures of speech. (Edwin H. Friedman)
>
>More to the point, give the user what they want, though not necessarily
>the way they want it.  Then gradually show them a better way.
>
>Bill
>
>
>
>
>
>Brad Fuller brad at bradfuller.com
>Mon Feb 5 23:01:59 UTC 2007
>
>Yep, if you want to move beyond the status quo and provide tools that
>seem odd at first blush to users, it's going to be a tad tougher sell.
>
>as always:
>
>"It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry
>out, nor more doubtful of success, nor dangerous to handle, than to
>initiate a new order of things. For the reformer has enemies in all
>those who profit by the old order, and only lukewarm defenders in all
>those who would profit by the new order, this lukewarmness arising
>partly from fear of their adversaries, who have the laws in their
>favor;
>and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who do not truly believe
>in
>anything new until they have had actual experiences of it. Thus, it
>arises that on every opportunity for attacking the reformer, his
>opponents do so with the zeal of partisans, the others only defend him
>half-heartedly, so that between them he runs great danger."
>
>1513 AD Machiavelli
>
>
>
>Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D.
>University of Florida
>Department of Anesthesiology
>PO Box 100254
>Gainesville, FL 32610-0254
>
>Email: [hidden email]
>Tel: (352) 846-1285
>FAX: (352) 392-7029
>
>

> From: Michael Davies
> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 4:04 PM
>
> [snip]
> After looking at the options (and trying unsuccessfully to make prefab
> usable for me), I gave up! I'm now using Seaside to build the UI for
> my applications. This isn't a perfect answer,  in fact using a complex
> mix of HTML CSS and JS to replicate a rich client interface is pretty
> mad, but it quickly gives me a user interface that is familiar and can
> be layed out quickly and easily.
>
> If I had access within Squeak to a full set of UI widgets that had a
> consistent look and feel, were more 'mainstream', and preferably came
> with builder tools (perhaps Magritte with layout hinting), I'd love to
> have the power of Morphic under the covers, but as it is, Seaside is
> the best game in town.
>
> Cheers,
> Michael
>

> Bill Schwab wrote:
>> Stef,
>>
>> You seem to be making my point w/o realizing it.  There is indeed no
>> need for struggle (with our would-be users),
>
> of course this is not the struggle I am talking about.
>
> I'm talking about struggling to be popular. I just don't see the point.
> But this is only personal, and I understand a lot of people want to make
> it easier to do business with Squeak (that's what you call "realizing
> it's potential" I guess); so let it be if enough developers are
> motivated. I am not.

> Bill Schwab wrote:
>> Stef,
>>
>> You seem to be making my point w/o realizing it.  There is indeed no
>> need for struggle (with our would-be users),
>
> of course this is not the struggle I am talking about.
>
> I'm talking about struggling to be popular. I just don't see the
> point. But this is only personal, and I understand a lot of people
> want to make it easier to do business with Squeak (that's what you
> call "realizing it's potential" I guess); so let it be if enough
> developers are motivated. I am not.
>
> what I am interested into is keeping the true power of Squeak intact,
> and have it grow. to me its potential is already realized (realized as
> potential so to speak). if most "would-be users" don't see this power,
> too bad for them. that's what I call elitism: people have to deserve a
> profound and intelligent software such as Squeak by understanding its
> true nature (and certainly there is a lot we could do to help them
> climb the learning curve). this is true of any worthy art or science:
> you have to study to master it.
>
> now if Squeak is to become the next big thing that's fine. I certainly
> do not "combat every attempt to provide OPTIONAL behavior" as you said
> (how did you come to believe this ?).
>
> what I'm saying is that maintaining and improving Squeak is already a
> demanding task (actually just understanding it is already something
> :). this requires work, intelligence and creativity, plus there are
> risks: Squeak being a kind of living thing can become sick, it can
> also die. so we need to take care of it. to me the rest is secondary.
>
>
> well this is just my opinion. I have no idea how many people would
> agree...
>
>
> regards,
>
> Stef
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

>From: Elod Kironsky <[hidden email]>
>Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
>list<[hidden email]>
>To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
>list<[hidden email]>
>Subject: Re: Making Squeak more accessible and used - reversing the trend
>Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 12:41:40 +0100
>
>I totally agree with Stef here. Squeak is a wonderful thing among
>programming environments, utilizing exploratory programming in a unique and
>genial way, so let's not transform it into something less beautiful just to
>make it used by more people. That has absolutely no sense. Maybe this is a
>catch 22. If we preserve Squeak as it is now, it will not be used so
>widely, but if we modify it to be used widely, we loose the essence of
>Squeak that we love so much and that made us to make it to be used widely
>(sorry for this messy sentence :-) ).
>
>Elod
>
>Stéphane Rollandin wrote:
>>Bill Schwab wrote:
>>>Stef,
>>>
>>>You seem to be making my point w/o realizing it.  There is indeed no need
>>>for struggle (with our would-be users),
>>
>>of course this is not the struggle I am talking about.
>>
>>I'm talking about struggling to be popular. I just don't see the point.
>>But this is only personal, and I understand a lot of people want to make
>>it easier to do business with Squeak (that's what you call "realizing it's
>>potential" I guess); so let it be if enough developers are motivated. I am
>>not.
>>
>>what I am interested into is keeping the true power of Squeak intact, and
>>have it grow. to me its potential is already realized (realized as
>>potential so to speak). if most "would-be users" don't see this power, too
>>bad for them. that's what I call elitism: people have to deserve a
>>profound and intelligent software such as Squeak by understanding its true
>>nature (and certainly there is a lot we could do to help them climb the
>>learning curve). this is true of any worthy art or science: you have to
>>study to master it.
>>
>>now if Squeak is to become the next big thing that's fine. I certainly do
>>not "combat every attempt to provide OPTIONAL behavior" as you said (how
>>did you come to believe this ?).
>>
>>what I'm saying is that maintaining and improving Squeak is already a
>>demanding task (actually just understanding it is already something :).
>>this requires work, intelligence and creativity, plus there are risks:
>>Squeak being a kind of living thing can become sick, it can also die. so
>>we need to take care of it. to me the rest is secondary.
>>
>>
>>well this is just my opinion. I have no idea how many people would
>>agree...
>>
>>
>>regards,
>>
>>Stef
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>