[squeak-dev] Squeak users (was Re: [Vm-dev] Compiling squeak-vm for Linux 64bit)

On 17.03.2009, at 13:36, Göran Krampe wrote:

> Hi!
>
> Really wrong forum, but what the heck.

Wrong indeed. Reply-to set to squeak-dev.

For those coming late: the original thread starts to get interesting  
around here:
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/vm-dev/2009-March/002427.html

Hehe. Well, at least I am trying to always distinguish between "Etoys"  
and "Squeak". This was not always necessary, and in particular the  
education community refers to Etoys as Squeak out of habit. But around  
here "Squeak" means Smalltalk development.

> Another reason is probably that I don't understand why anyone would  
> only want to "use" Squeak without any interest in how it is being  
> moved forward nor how it works inside. When you develop in Squeak  
> you typically invest in its future, so why on earth would you not be  
> considering yourself a member of the "squeak-dev" community?

Good question. But when you develop in, say, Python, don't you "invest  
in its future"? Still, most Python users would not contribute to  
Python directly, right? But indirectly they do.

In my opinion broadening the user base of Squeak would have long-term  
benefits. Yes you may get more annoying questions, but that's what the  
proposed users list would be for (initially anyway - there might even  
be more books if there was a real market). With more Squeak users  
there also would be more who jump the fence and become Squeak  
developers. Which would cover your next point ...

... which is that each individual only has so much time. But if we had  
a larger community and made it really easy to contribute, we'd still  
move much faster.

- Bert -

Hi!

Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> On 17.03.2009, at 13:36, Göran Krampe wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> Really wrong forum, but what the heck.
>
> Wrong indeed. Reply-to set to squeak-dev.

Dropped vm-dev altogether.

I agree. And also, I am *in general* not really opposed to anything at
all. :) I am just weary of "forum pollution" and probably dislike the
idea that we always need to partition ourselves into these defined "roles".

>> Another reason is probably that I don't understand why anyone would
>> only want to "use" Squeak without any interest in how it is being
>> moved forward nor how it works inside. When you develop in Squeak you
>> typically invest in its future, so why on earth would you not be
>> considering yourself a member of the "squeak-dev" community?
>
> Good question. But when you develop in, say, Python, don't you "invest
> in its future"? Still, most Python users would not contribute to Python
> directly, right? But indirectly they do.

"Contribute directly"? By developing in a language/system you
immediately become involved - and thus you contribute. I am fairly sure
that the majority of subscribers to squeak-dev have NOT their developer
initials inside the image - nor necessarily in any other public package
for Squeak. I still think they contribute.

...so what am I saying? :) I am just saying, yet another mailinglist?
Sure, go ahead, that is IMHO *not* the point.

The point is - should we draw these lines in the sand or should we
perhaps draw *other* non-obvious lines or should we indeed draw them at all?

> In my opinion broadening the user base of Squeak would have long-term
> benefits.

I really, really think you presume something here. I am not against
"broadening the user base".

 > Yes you may get more annoying questions, but that's what the
> proposed users list would be for (initially anyway - there might even be
> more books if there was a real market).

Again, I *like* beginner questions - and especially when posted to
squeak-dev because they almost always spawn interesting threads. And
*everyone* has IMHO some interesting perspective.

 > With more Squeak users there
Again, I am not against growing. I don't think anyone really is. I am
against "stretching us thin" and "grouping" based on some kind of
"level" of knowledge, or perceived role.

But hey, don't listen to me - let the elected ones do some talking on
this subject :)

regards, Göran

On 17.03.2009, at 14:53, Göran Krampe wrote:

Well, a line in the sand is a political statement, and I don't see how  
that would help us here. A fence otoh can help the residents feel  
secure, as long as there are enough unlocked gates in sight.

My point actually was not the new list, I just used that discussion to  
illustrate the issue I see.

The question is if we could somehow support the (potentially large)  
group of developers who just want to "use Squeak". There are many more  
Smalltalk developers using Squeak than those who subscribe to the  
mailing lists. Be it developers in a shop or students in a class, they  
have no intrinsic interest in "advancing Squeak", at least not until  
they master it.

I actually have no proposal about what to do, I just feel there is  
something missing. Sorry for the noise ...

- Bert -

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 3:24 PM, Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> wrote:
This runs the risk of quickly turning into another flame war over the
number of lists, the relative merits of lists vs. forums, etc., etc.
but I think Bert raises a valid issue here. I personally know several
people who dabble in development using Squeak but have no interest
whatsoever in its ongoing development (other than that it continue to
work). There has been an assumption in the Squeak community that users
== contributors, which will most likely become increasingly incorrect
as(suming) the community grows.

As Bert says, the issue is not necessarily specific to a mailing list
but a question of how resources are presented to different audiences.

Taking the Seaside mailing lists as an example just because I'm
familiar with the numbers, there are on the order of 1000 users on the
seaside list and only around 70 on the development list. The problems
we discuss on the development list are just not of interest to the
majority of Seaside users.

Julian

Heya!

Bert Freudenberg wrote:
Hehe!

> My point actually was not the new list, I just used that discussion to
> illustrate the issue I see.

Right, ok.

> The question is if we could somehow support the (potentially large)
> group of developers who just want to "use Squeak". There are many more
> Smalltalk developers using Squeak than those who subscribe to the
> mailing lists. Be it developers in a shop or students in a class, they
> have no intrinsic interest in "advancing Squeak", at least not until
> they master it.

To be concrete - perhaps we are lacking good "official" tutorials, docs.
:) Yup, *boring*!!!

But let's try reasoning about this:

a) Beginners need guidance. And answers. There are two ways:
        1. Ask and get an answer. It works on IRC, lists etc.
        2. Follow docs. Hmmmm, there's a lot... but anything official?!

Reference docs are boring, and beginners don't plow through reference
manuals. They may plow through a good intro book though. So intro books,
tutorials and howtos are fun == good!


b) The community as we stand have x amount of time and effort to spend
in total. We already spend time on improving stuff, because that is what
we do to support our own needs and itches. Getting people/us to spend
MORE time is a silly quest.

But perhaps we can get us to *focus* on this single *need*. *Official*
fun and good docs! If there is a strong focus on this, and a strong Team
formed with a good and fun approach - then I bet people may chip in and
do some brain dumping. Not full time or anything, but a piece here and
there. I can immediately sign up to write something good about
SocketStream for example. :)


c) ...and when/if we would do this then I have some concrete ideas already:

1. Do not use the Squeak wiki. It is totally overwhelming and chaotic
etc. Better start from scratch and get something new, fresh and clean. I
am not saying that we throw all that valuable information away - let's
just not claim it is anything more than a "haystack with some good
needles in it".

2. Look into the Magic book idea. At *least* look into possibly tying
unit tests into a validation model for the produced docs (one of the
ideas I presented - the idea of using the life cycle of the unit tests
to indicate possibly stale docs - because tests normally are black box
tests and should evolve naturally in tandem with the external API). I do
think it might be a good idea to prevent docs from "rotting" so fast.
Because let's not kid ourselves - docs *rot*, just like code does. But
we can make it rot less fast. And we can make sure our *official* docs
are maintained if we keep them few enough :).


> I actually have no proposal about what to do, I just feel there is
> something missing. Sorry for the noise ...

I am with ya. And there you have a proposal. Stressing the "a" in "a
proposal", not necessarily the best - but at least food for thought  :)

regards, Göran

Julian Fitzell pravi:

> As Bert says, the issue is not necessarily specific to a mailing list
> but a question of how resources are presented to different audiences.

This is the main point! There are different audiences and each of us
play different roles, once you are a mere end user of some code, but a
developer for some other. So this end user/developer distinction is
important, and on package level, not only in overall Squeak level.

This also means that the developers of some packages need to have in
mind the end user perspective, as they are also end users of some other
developer's work. Here I mean at least to tag versions of their
packages, some as stable/end user friendly, other as in development.

Squeak is weak currently in this basic distinction, but it would help
all of us, and to repeat: all developers are also end users!

Janko


--
Janko Mivšek
AIDA/Web
Smalltalk Web Application Server
http://www.aidaweb.si

On Tue, 2009-03-17 at 16:02 +0100, Julian Fitzell wrote: Hmmm, that's not true for me. I really would like to read the seaside
dev mailing list. But I already have to many mailing lists to follow.
I even unsubscribed from vm-dev to get a little bit of concentration.
Mailing lists from type magma or ometa I can have dozens :) But the
higher the volume the less lists I can mangle. That's all.

Norbert

On Tue, Mar 17, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Norbert Hartl <[hidden email]> wrote:
Well perhaps I should have said "of *enough* interest". I totally
understand what you are saying... I unsubscribed from squeak-dev for a
while a few years ago because the volume just got overwhelming and
none of it seemed to have any bearing on me. And if that's true for
me, it must be true for other less invested Squeak users.

Julian