Squeak Foundation Board 2007 Candidates
Locked
12345
... 7
12345
... 7
 
|
"Ron Teitelbaum" <[hidden email]> writes:
> As a voter I would like people to answer my questions, but I'm abstaining > from asking again. I will most likely vote for candidates that spend some > time actually participating in a conversation, answering questions, filling > in the wiki page and addressing issues about building, managing, and > supporting our community. That is how I would like it to be looked at, too. Deciding what questions should be answered is, itself, a democratic issue. :) That said, it does not take any official action to get these discussions going. All it takes is a motivated community member to ask all the candidates a question and then post their responses. Feel free to write a giant flashing red "DID NOT RESPOND" for any candidate that did not even write you back. -Lex |
Re: election details (was "Squeak Foundation Board 2007 Candidates")
|
|
In reply to this post by Roel Wuyts
Roel Wuyts <[hidden email]> writes:
> In my opinion it is not the task of an election committee to prepare > questions or start a discussion (no matter how well the intentions, > as in this case). It is the task of the committee to help the process > though: setting up a wiki, provide a resume with all the names of the > candidates, ask all the candidates for a small abstract of their > plans and a link to more detailed information, etc. Right on. We may as well start good habits. This said, I would love to see someone, or even better multiple people, maintaining web pages or wiki pages that collect and distill what the candidates have said. -Lex |
Re: election details (was "Squeak Foundation Board 2007 Candidates")
|
|
Note that the wiki page exists [1], it has links to election pages for
each of the candidates. Todd, Cees, Brad, Craig and Tim have used those to put up some information and links about themselves and their intentions. There are two questions there pending answers for Stef and Tansel. [1] http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/Squeak%20Foundation%20Board%202007%20Election Lex Spoon wrote: > Roel Wuyts <[hidden email]> writes: > >> In my opinion it is not the task of an election committee to prepare >> questions or start a discussion (no matter how well the intentions, >> as in this case). It is the task of the committee to help the process >> though: setting up a wiki, provide a resume with all the names of the >> candidates, ask all the candidates for a small abstract of their >> plans and a link to more detailed information, etc. >> > > Right on. We may as well start good habits. > > This said, I would love to see someone, or even better multiple > people, maintaining web pages or wiki pages that collect and distill > what the candidates have said. > > -Lex > > > |
|
|
In reply to this post by garduino
Hi-- > I wonder, if Ron not send the mail with the proposal of questions and > support mail of the rest of Squeakers, what happened? May be > nothing... Well, something had already happened before he sent that message. As the candidates announced their candidacies, they each mentioned what they had done (if running again), and what they'd like to do, as requested. I thought those messages were very useful (and I've repeated mine on my election wiki page). -C -- Craig Latta http://netjam.org/resume |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ron Teitelbaum
Hi Ron-- > Do you support stepping up fundraising? If so, what do you propose to > do with the money collected? It seems to me that there is a very strong consensus in the community in support of increased fundraising; I support it as well. In fact, this consensus is so strong that the first part of the question strikes me as very odd. Clearly (to me), the tricky part, and where there *is* disagreement, is about creating an appropriate legal entity to receive and disburse the funds. If we had funding, I would suggest we spend it on keeping the community's online facilities running (hosting bills, etc.). If we can devise a fair and productive way to fund development, I would support that as well. > Do you support bounty projects? If so, can you lay out how you would > like to see a bounty program administered? As I said above, I support funding development in a fair and productive way. The typical "bounty" seems to consist of a vague statement of the desired result and a rather arbitrary financial reward. I think doing something like this in the Squeak community would almost certainly lead to bitterness, because it would be a race where every loser would invest far more effort than is reasonable. I think it would create unconstructive competition. It would turn developers into footrace contestants working in secret, each hoping to beat the others. There would be significant pressure to claim to be first, rather than doing the job properly; and I suspect there would be a great deal of arguing over whether the goal was actually met, and the people arguing would have a financial interest in the outcome. Not good! For each desired result, I would much rather see the appropriate community team solicit and refine bids from interested developers, in public, and choose one. With a dialog between bidders and the rest of the community, I think we'd be more likely to define the goal with sufficient detail, and choose appropriate rewards. I expect that a bid could be rescinded if work went over schedule, etc. Of course, for any of this to be possible, we need to have a budget which is both sufficiently large and *sustainable*. > Do you support incorporation and not for profit tax status for Squeak > Foundation? This question strikes me as especially loaded. The Squeak Foundation board of directors has already been working toward this for months, as you can read in the board meeting notes. Isn't it a bit late to be asking this question? Why didn't you take issue with our approach when we mentioned it in the meeting notes? The main signal I get from this question is that you oppose incorporation as a distinct tax-exempt organization, and that you're somehow trying to draw support for that point of view. Not long after you initially posted these questions, my suspicion was proved correct by a subsequent message you sent to the board (which I leave to you to repeat in public if you wish). At best, I think you have a conflict of interest on this issue (between speaking for the community in asking campaign questions and having your own agenda on this issue). > What do you believe is the future of Smalltalk? I think the future of Smalltalk is one in which it is seen as the easiest way to teach the expression of intent with a computer, and the most productive way to build meaningful systems. So far I think Smalltalk has done rather well on the second part, but very poorly on the first. > What do you think the community is doing right, what should be > improved? The community has started to delegate tasks to the right interested people, which is great. The way we communicate, though, isn't terribly effective. I think it'd help if we devoted more effort to real-time communication (e.g., via the Squeak IRC channel, Skype, and in-person conferences). > Should the Squeak be represented at more conferences? Of course it should. I can't imagine why anyone would answer "no" to this question, so it seems very odd. There are, however, reasons why we might not able to accomplish it, such as a lack of funds or available time. I hope no one will confuse a lack of resources with a lack of desire. > Should Tim be given a gazillon dollars for his excellent work on > Squeak? We should all have a gazillion dollars for our excellent work on Squeak. > They are not arbitrary questions or one sided Ron's agenda questions. I hope I made myself clear about that in my answers. > I thought they were pretty well sanitized and general. Some of them > are downright softballs! Whether or not they're softballs is beside the point. Some of the questions were *leading*, not necessarily aggressive. I think tough questions are fine. Well, judging by the inevitable email storm around questioning, it seems to me that to remain above reproach a candidate must answer any and all questions asked by anyone everywhere (lest a flashing red "DID NOT RESPOND" descend from the skies :). I'll certainly try to answer any question I see, as my available time allows. But you'll pardon me if I answer the questions I see between the lines as well. :) Finally, thanks for your work on the elections team, Ron (and thanks to Daniel and the rest of the team). While I disagree with some of your ideas about how to conduct an election, I do appreciate your work. thanks again, -C -- Craig Latta http://netjam.org/resume |
|
|
Thanks for your answers Craig.
I think you may have read my intentions wrong concerning the incorporation. While compiling this list I went over the issues that were asked by the community. Most of the issues that seemed to be very important were licensing, funding (and corporate sponsorship, or engaging more businesses), incorporation, and most of all bounty projects. The rest are things that I'm interested in: the future of Smalltalk and how we can improve the community. The conference question has been coming up recently in different lists and I think the community agrees that we should be raising money and one of the major things we could be doing is sponsoring people to attend conference and represent Squeak. I'd be interested if the board agrees with that. I didn't think it would be appropriate to ask questions about current development and things that are still being debated so I left those questions out. During the last election the major issue was, if we are going to incorporate why haven't we? I put that question in there as a softball to give you and others a chance to say what is going on or voice their support for this important issue. I am not against incorporation. The email you are talking about was some current advice and some ancient history that I gave to Bert. He asked me if he could forward my advice to you. I thought I was pretty clear what my issues are and if the board would like to continue with the conversations and advice I was giving it before the current board was elected and eliminated my participation I will be happy to help where I can. I suppose you did me a favor since I was spending too much time on it anyway. My goals are pretty simple; I'm trying to help the community where I can. I believe it would be good for the community for the next board to be more open, ask for and accept more help. I appreciate your talent and contributions to the community. You did a very nice job organizing board and finally getting things moving. Thanks again for answering the questions, Ron Teitelbaum > From: Craig Latta > Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2007 8:15 PM > > > Hi Ron-- > > > Do you support stepping up fundraising? If so, what do you propose to > > do with the money collected? > > It seems to me that there is a very strong consensus in the > community in support of increased fundraising; I support it as well. In > fact, this consensus is so strong that the first part of the question > strikes me as very odd. Clearly (to me), the tricky part, and where > there *is* disagreement, is about creating an appropriate legal entity > to receive and disburse the funds. > > If we had funding, I would suggest we spend it on keeping the > community's online facilities running (hosting bills, etc.). If we can > devise a fair and productive way to fund development, I would support > that as well. > > > Do you support bounty projects? If so, can you lay out how you would > > like to see a bounty program administered? > > As I said above, I support funding development in a fair and > productive way. The typical "bounty" seems to consist of a vague > statement of the desired result and a rather arbitrary financial reward. > I think doing something like this in the Squeak community would almost > certainly lead to bitterness, because it would be a race where every > loser would invest far more effort than is reasonable. I think it would > create unconstructive competition. It would turn developers into > footrace contestants working in secret, each hoping to beat the others. > There would be significant pressure to claim to be first, rather than > doing the job properly; and I suspect there would be a great deal of > arguing over whether the goal was actually met, and the people arguing > would have a financial interest in the outcome. Not good! > > For each desired result, I would much rather see the appropriate > community team solicit and refine bids from interested developers, in > public, and choose one. With a dialog between bidders and the rest of > the community, I think we'd be more likely to define the goal with > sufficient detail, and choose appropriate rewards. I expect that a bid > could be rescinded if work went over schedule, etc. > > Of course, for any of this to be possible, we need to have a budget > which is both sufficiently large and *sustainable*. > > > Do you support incorporation and not for profit tax status for Squeak > > Foundation? > > This question strikes me as especially loaded. The Squeak > Foundation board of directors has already been working toward this for > months, as you can read in the board meeting notes. Isn't it a bit late > to be asking this question? Why didn't you take issue with our approach > when we mentioned it in the meeting notes? The main signal I get from > this question is that you oppose incorporation as a distinct tax-exempt > organization, and that you're somehow trying to draw support for that > point of view. Not long after you initially posted these questions, my > suspicion was proved correct by a subsequent message you sent to the > board (which I leave to you to repeat in public if you wish). > > At best, I think you have a conflict of interest on this issue > (between speaking for the community in asking campaign questions and > having your own agenda on this issue). > > > What do you believe is the future of Smalltalk? > > I think the future of Smalltalk is one in which it is seen as the > easiest way to teach the expression of intent with a computer, and the > most productive way to build meaningful systems. So far I think > Smalltalk has done rather well on the second part, but very poorly on > the first. > > > What do you think the community is doing right, what should be > > improved? > > The community has started to delegate tasks to the right interested > people, which is great. The way we communicate, though, isn't terribly > effective. I think it'd help if we devoted more effort to real-time > communication (e.g., via the Squeak IRC channel, Skype, and in-person > conferences). > > > Should the Squeak be represented at more conferences? > > Of course it should. I can't imagine why anyone would answer "no" > to this question, so it seems very odd. There are, however, reasons why > we might not able to accomplish it, such as a lack of funds or available > time. I hope no one will confuse a lack of resources with a lack of > desire. > > > Should Tim be given a gazillon dollars for his excellent work on > > Squeak? > > We should all have a gazillion dollars for our excellent work on > Squeak. > > > They are not arbitrary questions or one sided Ron's agenda questions. > > I hope I made myself clear about that in my answers. > > > I thought they were pretty well sanitized and general. Some of them > > are downright softballs! > > Whether or not they're softballs is beside the point. Some of the > questions were *leading*, not necessarily aggressive. I think tough > questions are fine. > > Well, judging by the inevitable email storm around questioning, it > seems to me that to remain above reproach a candidate must answer any > and all questions asked by anyone everywhere (lest a flashing red "DID > NOT RESPOND" descend from the skies :). I'll certainly try to answer any > question I see, as my available time allows. But you'll pardon me if I > answer the questions I see between the lines as well. :) > > Finally, thanks for your work on the elections team, Ron (and > thanks to Daniel and the rest of the team). While I disagree with some > of your ideas about how to conduct an election, I do appreciate your work. > > > thanks again, > > -C > > -- > Craig Latta > http://netjam.org/resume > > |
Re: election details *PLEASE READ*
|
|
In reply to this post by Ron Teitelbaum
> 1) Do you support stepping up fundraising?
Absolutely. > If so what do you propose to do > with the money collected? After we pay the current bills, bounties and funding students to work on core facilities come to mind. > 2) Do you support bounty projects? If so can you lay out how you > would like > to see a bounty program administered? See above. I can think of a couple different models that might work including bidding, claiming for a time period, X-prize style where you offer a prize to complete a goal and first one to hit it claims the money. I think it would require some discussion to come up with the appropriate model and not every model may be appropriate for every project. > 3) Do you support incorporation and not for profit tax status for > Squeak > Foundation? Yes > 4) What do you believe is the future of Smalltalk? I believe every other language is asymptotically approaching Smalltalk. > 5) What do you think the community is doing right, what should be > improved? The web site is looking great, some of the teams are doing great things. Letting Ralph focus on raising the quality bar for 3.10 is a step in the right direction. I think there are rather too many competing forks coming up and some coordination/communication might be in order. I don't think the board can dictate any of this, but I think it can help people make connections. > 6) Should the Squeak be represented at more conferences? Yes - too many people have never heard of it. > 7) Should Tim be given a gazillon dollars for his excellent work on > Squeak? Sure, it should be easy since he lives in Canada and their dollars are so much smaller than real dollars. :-) Seriously, it would be great to find ways to reward more people for their contributions. > They are not arbitrary questions or one sided Ron's agenda > questions. I > thought they were pretty well sanitized and general. Some of them are > downright softballs! > > Ron > > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: tim Rowledge [mailto:[hidden email]] >> Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 1:58 PM >> To: [hidden email]; The general-purpose Squeak developers list >> Subject: Re: election details *PLEASE READ* >> >> >> On 19-Feb-07, at 10:32 AM, Ron Teitelbaum wrote: >> >>> >>> Craig suggests that we do not post an article that has candidates >>> answer my >>> questions because my questions are loaded. >> >> I pretty much agree with Craig here; no bad intent is needed by >> anyone in the process and yet it can very easily become a nasty >> argument. It seems to be the nature of email/group communications. >> Survey questions (and what Ron was suggesting is essentially a >> survey) are very difficult to write in such a way as to *elicit >> opinions* rather than *agreement with implied opinion in the >> question*. >> >> 1) Have you stopped beating your spouse yet? >> 2) Do you agree that we must always fight against stopping <foo> >> being prevented, if indeed it not happening caused nothing to not be >> undoably redone? >> 3) Why? Explain in 750 words, double spaced on unlined paper. In >> green crayon. >> >> >> tim >> -- >> tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim >> Klingon Code Warrior:- 7) "You question the worthiness of my Code?! I >> should kill you where you stand!" >> >> > > > |
Re: Question for Candidates: Incorperation and Viewpoints Research Institute
|
|
In reply to this post by Ron Teitelbaum
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 02:08:01PM -0500, Ron Teitelbaum wrote:
> 3) Do you support incorporation and not for profit tax status for Squeak > Foundation? I have an addendum for this question for the candidates. Viewpoints Research Institute is already a non-profit entity dedicated to the development of Squeak. What do you envision is the purpose of the Squeak Foundation with respect to Viewpoints, and how to you think they should contribute to one another in terms of funds and talent pools? -- Matthew Fulmer -- http://mtfulmer.wordpress.com/ Help improve Squeak Documentation: http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/808 |
Re: election details *PLEASE READ*
|
|
In reply to this post by tblanchard
>> 4) What do you believe is the future of Smalltalk?
> > I believe every other language is asymptotically approaching Smalltalk. Hm. Can't really let this statement stand by itself. While I think (hope) it isn't meant that way I find ignorance one of the hardest things to tolerate. Saying that "every other language is asymptotically approaching Smalltalk" sounds too much like "and therefore we can safely ignore them" to my mind. My wish for people representing Squeak (not only, but particularly those) would be to be open and engaging in discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of each system and language. This means acknowledging that other languages (including Java) have their strengths (yes, including Java) and that a discussion (regardless of its outcome) about what parts may be worthwhile to adopt in the context of Squeak is desirable and should be held with an open mind towards improving both language and system. Personally, I think Python is a good example in this regard. There are a lot of new features proposed every time and they are often weighed based on how "Pythonic" they feel (which is a beautifully underspecified term to keep the discussion open and discuss how a feature relates in the context of other language features). And while I will admit that language changes can go overboard (recently I discovered "whitespaceless" Python which is about as *disgusting* a language abuse as they get) a lot of good features get integrated in Python by looking at and learning from other languages and systems. In any case, I think it is important for people representing Squeak to stay open to improvements *to the language* and not just to claim that "eventually, every other language will get there so really there will never, ever be anything to learn here". Cheers, - Andreas |
Re: election details *PLEASE READ*
|
|
In reply to this post by tblanchard
On 20-Feb-07, at 8:26 PM, Todd Blanchard wrote: > >> 7) Should Tim be given a gazillon dollars for his excellent work >> on Squeak? > > Sure, it should be easy since he lives in Canada and their dollars > are so much smaller than real dollars. > :-) Hey! You should look at a currency comparison graph for the last few years. George has done a terrific job of devaluing the USD. Which has hurt me a great deal since a considerable fraction of my vast fortune is entrained in USD right now :-( And anyway, is a gazillion more or less than a brazillion? tim -- tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim Useful random insult:- When a thought crosses her mind, it's a long and lonely journey. |
Re: election details *PLEASE READ*
|
|
In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab
On Feb 20, 2007, at 10:59 PM, Andreas Raab wrote: > Hm. Can't really let this statement stand by itself. While I think > (hope) it isn't meant that way I find ignorance one of the hardest > things to tolerate. Saying that "every other language is > asymptotically approaching Smalltalk" sounds too much like "and > therefore we can safely ignore them" to my mind. That would be putting words into my mouth. Good artists copy, great artists steal. I'm all about finding new synergies and stealing the best ideas. -Todd Blanchard |
RE: election details *PLEASE READ*
|
|
In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab
<Andreas>...I think it is important for people representing Squeak to stay
open to improvements *to the language* and not just to claim that "eventually, every other language will get there so really there will never, ever be anything to learn here". </Andreas> Your comment made me think of the difference in attitude between French speakers and English Speakers. The French have L'Academie Francaise--and woe unto those it deems to be sullying French with foreignisms. The English have no such thing. English has a huge vocabulary--much of it stolen shamlessly from other languages. In my opinion, Smalltalkers act more like French speakers. And that definitely gets noticed, let me tell you. Other programming languages have been stealing from Smalltalk for decades. It's time we returned the favor. --Alan |
Re: election details *PLEASE READ*
|
|
In reply to this post by Ron Teitelbaum
On Feb 20, 2007, at 11:57 PM, Alan Lovejoy wrote: > Your comment made me think of the difference in attitude between > French > speakers and English Speakers. I don't find this analogy particularly compelling. I don't think people are really trying to keep Smalltalk 'pure'. I think they're trying to find ways to improve it. Lots of things have been tried - multiple inheritance, prototype based vs class based models, access control wrappers, etc... The cool thing is you can make it what you want already. The trick is getting your nifty thing adopted into the standard package. > Other programming languages have been stealing from Smalltalk for > decades. > It's time we returned the favor. I'm in favor of that - but honestly, there hasn't been a lot worth stealing from the mainstream. I have been looking at erlang recently and find some of the parallel/ process/queue constructs interesting and would love to try to bring some of that over and try building a high performance web server based on those patterns. And then, of course, there are interesting technologies that have nothing to do with the language but would make a great addition to the platform. Like Supple http://www.cs.washington.edu/ai/supple/ - a really nifty demo I saw last year. So there is lots of great stuff to steal - but not much of it from the mainstream languages - they mostly seem to ape the last generation and then take a little lunge in the direction of Smalltalk. -Todd Blanchard |
Re: election details *PLEASE READ*
|
|
Todd Blanchard wrote:
> I'm in favor of that - but honestly, there hasn't been a lot worth > stealing from the mainstream. Really? Namespaces? Modules? Interfaces? Every even remotely mainstream language I am aware about has at least two out of these three - you don't find those worthwhile? > So there is lots of great stuff to steal - but not much of it from the > mainstream languages - they mostly seem to ape the last generation and > then take a little lunge in the direction of Smalltalk. I must admit I'm not particularly impressed with that overall assessment. Cheers, - Andreas |
Re: election details *PLEASE READ*
|
|
In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab
Hi fellas!
>>> 4) What do you believe is the future of Smalltalk? >> >> I believe every other language is asymptotically approaching Smalltalk. > > Hm. Can't really let this statement stand by itself. [SNIP] I wholeheartedly agree with Andreas. While I also think *many* languages, especially open source "scripting" (I hate the term) languages, are indeed getting closer and closer to Smalltalk in *many* aspects (Ruby being one of the prime examples of course), it is IMHO definitely not true of ALL languages or ALL aspects. Just look at Haskell or Erlang or Fortress or Factor or... there is a whole range of "strange" languages out there. :) There are indeed lots of neat things to steal, or at LEAST be inspired by. Hmmm, even in Java. I guess. Somewhere. ;) regards, Göran |
Re: election details *PLEASE READ*
|
|
In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab
On Feb 21, 2007, at 12:40 AM, Andreas Raab wrote: > I must admit I'm not particularly impressed with that overall > assessment. Then don't vote for me. Sheesh. Given that AFAICS you've spent the better part of your career hacking Smalltalk rather than working in the mudpits, I'm not giving your view from a distance a lot of weight. I have years of full time development in these languages - C++ expert, Java expert, Objective C expert. Smalltalk - I'm just pretty good. Namespaces I've seen the effect of in C++, Java and VW. I think they are a bigger PITA than they are worth. Honestly, I prefer sticking two letter prefixes in front of stuff. Modules are so overloaded you'll have to define what you mean. Interfaces - not a fan of the hardwired interface ala Java. I do like informal protocols as implemented in ObjectiveC. Specifically, I like that I can define a protocol, and then ask an object if it conforms to the protocol without having to go back and say "this object will implement this protocol". Not that explicit protocols isn't occasionally useful, but I think the current subclassResponsibility mechanism gets the same point across. |
Re: election details *PLEASE READ*
|
|
In reply to this post by Andreas.Raab
Hi!
> Todd Blanchard wrote: >> I'm in favor of that - but honestly, there hasn't been a lot worth >> stealing from the mainstream. > > Really? Namespaces? Modules? Interfaces? Every even remotely mainstream > language I am aware about has at least two out of these three - you > don't find those worthwhile? Ah. Yummy. That word again. :) Totally disregarding the point Andreas is trying to make (which I agree on btw), let me ramble off: - Namespaces. In my opinion this one is a hard one. Sure, we do need it from time to time in different scenarios, but it sure is hard IMHO to introduce a solution that doesn't "hurt" the feeling of Smalltalk. Including my own proposal which tries damn hard though. - Modules. This one would be neat to have in some fashion. I consider the word to mean "independently deployable unit" btw. Today MC is more or less grabbing this space (in a fashion) but with an SCM focus instead of deployment focus. Sidenote: I have toyed with an idea that a Module would simply consist of a serialized object chunk (normally a Set of classes a la an mcz snapshot) that has required inputs in the form of a list of globals and offered outputs in the form of a list of globals. Loading a module would be possible even if the required input globals weren't complete - it should then create a temporary binding that another Modules later can "fill in". This would make load order independent. Sure, it would not deal with "extension methods" a la MC - but perhaps it shouldn't? - Interfaces. Yes, might be neat to have. Traits touch on this a bit and we also have SmallInterfaces (which I never have looked at). I really don't know if it would hurt more than it would help. But... that doesn't mean that I advocate Squeak to stand still language-wise. I love the fact we got Traits - even though it hasn't taken off yet AFAIK - anyone using them btw? regards, Göran |
Re: election details *PLEASE READ*
|
|
In reply to this post by Ron Teitelbaum
Alan Lovejoy wrote:
> The French have L'Academie Francaise--and woe unto those it deems to be > sullying French with foreignisms. yes but keep in mind that about nobody cares about what the old timers in the Académie Française may think... Stef |
Re: election details *PLEASE READ*
|
|
In reply to this post by Göran Krampe
Göran Krampe wrote:
> I love the fact we got Traits - even though it hasn't taken > off yet AFAIK - anyone using them btw? I'm waiting for the tools to be ready... Stef |
|
|
In reply to this post by Göran Krampe
On Wed, 21 Feb 2007 00:43:25 -0800, Göran Krampe <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I wholeheartedly agree with Andreas. While I also think *many* languages, > especially open source "scripting" (I hate the term) languages, are > indeed > getting closer and closer to Smalltalk in *many* aspects (Ruby being one > of the prime examples of course), it is IMHO definitely not true of ALL > languages or ALL aspects. Can Ruby be considered as getting closer to Smalltalk if they started with Smalltalk and deliberately moved away? :-) I like (and use) a lot of languages but I don't find myself missing language features when using Squeak. I do miss certain IDE elements, however. And I do miss having a minimal starting point to build from. |
«
Return to Squeak - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |