On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 3:22 AM, K. K. Subramaniam subbukk@gmail.com wrote:
On Saturday 01 March 2008 5:34:52 am Craig Latta wrote:
Let's turn our attention to Squeak 4 now. Let's create a kernelwith nothing extraneous in it, and a module system we can use to keep the organization clear. I think the result will be much easier to learn, and far more pleasant to use. Getting there will be difficult, but it will be worth it.
If we are going to strip Squeak down and rebuild it, should we consider picking a new name for the project? The name Squeak has been around for more than a decade and has strong associations (good or bad) with certain feature sets and intended uses. A legally clear open source base is a good time to invent a new platform that can consolidate the lessons learnt from the Squeak project and build a new system for the next generation - just as Squeak emerged from Smalltalk-80.
Spoon? Hydra? Athena? Phoenix? Roar :-)?
I've thought about this too. "Squeak" is a name that's hard to take seriously, and I for one would be less inclined to advertise that any product I make is based on "Squeak". However, there's a large investment in the name - URLs, source code, public awareness, etc. The name is unlikely to change.
In my opinion, Squeak should be a minimal image that is used as a base or a template to create other projects that have different names. Squeak could be thought of as an internal development name that only us coders need to be aware of. What is advertised to the outside world are the names of the other projects, with a small note on the bottom of the packaging saying "Made with Squeak".
Mind you, Linux is taken seriously, and they use a fat penguin as a mascot.
Gulik.
"Michael" == Michael van der Gulik mikevdg@gmail.com writes:
Michael> Mind you, Linux is taken seriously, and they use a fat penguin as a Michael> mascot.
I may have my history wrong, but I think the "taken seriously" didn't happen until Red Hat stepped in. Maybe that's what we need... some sort of headgear for the mouse.
Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
"Michael" == Michael van der Gulik mikevdg@gmail.com writes:
Michael> Mind you, Linux is taken seriously, and they use a fat penguin as a Michael> mascot.
I may have my history wrong, but I think the "taken seriously" didn't happen until Red Hat stepped in. Maybe that's what we need... some sort of headgear for the mouse.
How about "Blue Cap" in allusion to the Blue Book? ;)
On 2008-03-04 18:45:41 -0200, Claus Kick claus_kick@web.de said:
Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
> "Michael" == Michael van der Gulik mikevdg@gmail.com writes:
Michael> Mind you, Linux is taken seriously, and they use a fat penguin as a Michael> mascot.
I may have my history wrong, but I think the "taken seriously" didn't happen until Red Hat stepped in. Maybe that's what we need... some sort of headgear for the mouse.
How about "Blue Cap" in allusion to the Blue Book? ;)
I like squeak as a name (but I'm spanish speaker who lives in spanish speaking places, so... maybe is not the same in english). But... if for "seriously taken" you mean "seriously taken by companies"... I think the first thing to face is the look&feel of the environment (who is being addressed sucessfully with UI Enhancements)
Cheers, Esteban
I really don't think that the name be the main factor to be taken seriously or not.
We (the smalltalkers) claim all the time that Smalltalk and objects are the superb technology to develop any sort of solution, well, we must prove it....with better tools that make more easy the production of software, but in the spirit of real object technology, not copying other "languages".
Just my thought. gsa.
2008/3/4, Esteban Lorenzano estebanlm@gmail.com:
On 2008-03-04 18:45:41 -0200, Claus Kick claus_kick@web.de said:
Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
>> "Michael" == Michael van der Gulik mikevdg@gmail.com writes:
Michael> Mind you, Linux is taken seriously, and they use a fat penguin as a Michael> mascot.
I may have my history wrong, but I think the "taken seriously" didn't happen until Red Hat stepped in. Maybe that's what we need... some sort of headgear for the mouse.
How about "Blue Cap" in allusion to the Blue Book? ;)
I like squeak as a name (but I'm spanish speaker who lives in spanish speaking places, so... maybe is not the same in english). But... if for "seriously taken" you mean "seriously taken by companies"... I think the first thing to face is the look&feel of the environment (who is being addressed sucessfully with UI Enhancements)
Cheers,
Esteban
How is Squeak notably less serious as a name than java ruby BASIC Pascal SNOBOL lisp etc?
And why would I have any respect for a business that declines to use a software system purely on the basis of the name anyway?
tim -- tim Rowledge; tim@rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim Strange OpCodes: HEM: Hide Evidence of Malfunction
+1
Ken
P.S. How about spending time writing some useful code instead?
On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 16:37 -0800, tim Rowledge wrote:
How is Squeak notably less serious as a name than java ruby BASIC Pascal SNOBOL lisp etc?
And why would I have any respect for a business that declines to use a software system purely on the basis of the name anyway?
tim
tim Rowledge; tim@rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim Strange OpCodes: HEM: Hide Evidence of Malfunction
I think we should rename it to:
"The Programming Language formally known as Squeak"
:-)
David
Quoting tim Rowledge tim@rowledge.org:
How is Squeak notably less serious as a name than java ruby BASIC Pascal SNOBOL lisp etc?
And why would I have any respect for a business that declines to use a software system purely on the basis of the name anyway?
tim
tim Rowledge; tim@rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim Strange OpCodes: HEM: Hide Evidence of Malfunction
(as opposed to "formerly known as ..." )
David
Quoting dpharris@telus.net:
I think we should rename it to:
"The Programming Language formally known as Squeak"
:-)
David
Quoting tim Rowledge tim@rowledge.org:
How is Squeak notably less serious as a name than java ruby BASIC Pascal SNOBOL lisp etc?
And why would I have any respect for a business that declines to use a software system purely on the basis of the name anyway?
tim
tim Rowledge; tim@rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim Strange OpCodes: HEM: Hide Evidence of Malfunction
"dpharris" == dpharris dpharris@telus.net writes:
dpharris> I think we should rename it to: dpharris> "The Programming Language formally known as Squeak"
dpharris> :-)
As long as we could turn the name into some unpronouncable symbol. :)
How about an assignment arrow, but rotated at some odd angle? :-)
l8r Sean
On Mar 4, 2008, at 7:05 PM, Randal L. Schwartz wrote:
"dpharris" == dpharris dpharris@telus.net writes:
dpharris> I think we should rename it to: dpharris> "The Programming Language formally known as Squeak"
dpharris> :-)
As long as we could turn the name into some unpronouncable symbol. :)
-- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 merlyn@stonehenge.com URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/ Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!
On 4-Mar-08, at 5:10 PM, Sean Heber wrote:
How about an assignment arrow, but rotated at some odd angle? :-)
You mean like ↫ Unicode 'LEFTWARDS ARROW WITH LOOP'?
tim -- tim Rowledge; tim@rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim Any program that runs right is obsolete.
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 3:59 PM, tim Rowledge tim@rowledge.org wrote:
On 4-Mar-08, at 5:10 PM, Sean Heber wrote:
How about an assignment arrow, but rotated at some odd angle? :-)
You mean like↫ Unicode 'LEFTWARDS ARROW WITH LOOP'?
Sounds good. Is http://www.lawl.org free? :-P.
Gulik.
tim Rowledge wrote:
On 4-Mar-08, at 5:10 PM, Sean Heber wrote:
How about an assignment arrow, but rotated at some odd angle? :-)
You mean like ↫ Unicode 'LEFTWARDS ARROW WITH LOOP'?
No, no, no. Josh and I just decided that it has already been taken as the "eventual assign operator" in Croquet. It means that the variable may or may not be assigned to and you're not supposed to care about whether it was assigned or not. Best used with combination with unused temporary variables! ;-)
PS. For other fancy arrows check http://www.alanwood.net/unicode/arrows.html
SCNR, - Andreas
On 4-Mar-08, at 7:19 PM, Andreas Raab wrote:
tim Rowledge wrote:
On 4-Mar-08, at 5:10 PM, Sean Heber wrote:
How about an assignment arrow, but rotated at some odd angle? :-)
You mean like ↫ Unicode 'LEFTWARDS ARROW WITH LOOP'?
No, no, no. Josh and I just decided that it has already been taken as the "eventual assign operator" in Croquet. It means that the variable may or may not be assigned to and you're not supposed to care about whether it was assigned or not. Best used with combination with unused temporary variables! ;-)
Ah, you mean results of those CrossedFingerPromises?
tim -- tim Rowledge; tim@rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim "How many Motie Watchmakers does it take to change a lightbulb?" "One. Four to change the lightbulb and seventeen to convert the old bulb into an escape capsule for all the others."
Really? how mach serious is squeak than java....(where from come the cafe).
In addition, the mouse and squeak reference a lot of qualities that comparatively put to squeak better than their competitors in the mainstream (the elephants). We are versatile, we adapt easily to the environment, well might spend hours writing about the comparison between elephants and mouses.
For this reason and for everything that comes earlier writing that, I think that we must preserve our identity.
The access to the business environment don't be in the name, but it is in the results, professionalism and above all love to be seen as a product in Squeak.
As long as we have in mind that Squeak is not only a laboratory experiment, but a reality that has the potential to improve software development at the enterprise level and act consciousness. Squeak will be take places in the companies.
And finally, if someone decides to use the language for the name ..... ummm, better not talk about this person.
cheers Diogenes
PD: Sorry for my "google" english.
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 10:37 PM, tim Rowledge tim@rowledge.org wrote:
How is Squeak notably less serious as a name than java ruby BASIC Pascal SNOBOL lisp etc?
And why would I have any respect for a business that declines to use a software system purely on the basis of the name anyway?
tim
tim Rowledge; tim@rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim Strange OpCodes: HEM: Hide Evidence of Malfunction
I absolutely agree with Esteban on this. A rename of the main project is like a huge debt on the Squeak "trademark". Fail just for a little and you get a mess of confusion among public. Do that and you are responsible for adding more barriers it already has in the market (for both developers and organizations).
We can work the Squeak as trademark but IMHO we are far for needing to prioritize deconstruction of the Squeak name.
A *lot* more important is to have well debugged tools and inject a *serius* ergonomy and usability fator to all the environment. Right now several Squeak interfaces in default distribution violates lots of principles of interface design. Improving that will do a lot more for "the goal".
cheers,
Sebastian Sastre
-----Mensaje original----- De: squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org] En nombre de Esteban Lorenzano Enviado el: Martes, 04 de Marzo de 2008 19:23 Para: squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org Asunto: [squeak-dev] Re: Renaming "Squeak"
...
I like squeak as a name (but I'm spanish speaker who lives in spanish speaking places, so... maybe is not the same in english). But... if for "seriously taken" you mean "seriously taken by companies"... I think the first thing to face is the look&feel of the environment (who is being addressed sucessfully with UI Enhancements)
Cheers, Esteban
On Mar 4, 2008, at 12:24 PM, Michael van der Gulik wrote:
"Squeak" is a name that's hard to take seriously, and I for one would be less inclined to advertise that any product I make is based on "Squeak". However, there's a large investment in the name - URLs, source code, public awareness, etc. The name is unlikely to change.
Squeak is not the most professional-sounding name that could have been chosen. One very important purpose of a name is marketing, and the name "Squeak" doesn't do that very well in a few rather important markets. Of course, if you're marketing to children (and those who educate them,) then Squeak is not at all a bad name.
But that's all water under the bridge at this point. Changing the name only, in the absence of any other substantive changes, would at best be ignored as a shameless (and not well-motivated) marketing ploy. At worst, it would be seen as an act of desperation.
Change Squeak so that it deserves a new name. Then the new name will be perceived as having been earned, and so will serve as an effective marketing tool to advertise the new, improved "Open Source Smalltalk."
--Alan
the artist formerly know as prince lol..
I agree with Mr. Rowledge, other programming languages have considerable strange names(see http://microsoft.toddverbeek.com/lang.html), and they are very successfully, I especially like the name C++ because of the ++ "joke" it has in it.
I personally feel that squeak should stay called squeak!
On Tue, Mar 4, 2008 at 6:52 PM, Alan Lovejoy < squeak-dev.sourcery@forum-mail.net> wrote:
On Mar 4, 2008, at 12:24 PM, Michael van der Gulik wrote:
"Squeak" is a name that's hard to take seriously, and I for one would be less inclined to advertise that any product I make is based on "Squeak". However, there's a large investment in the name - URLs, source code, public awareness, etc. The name is unlikely to change.
Squeak is not the most professional-sounding name that could have been chosen. One very important purpose of a name is marketing, and the name "Squeak" doesn't do that very well in a few rather important markets. Of course, if you're marketing to children (and those who educate them,) then Squeak is not at all a bad name.
But that's all water under the bridge at this point. Changing the name only, in the absence of any other substantive changes, would at best be ignored as a shameless (and not well-motivated) marketing ploy. At worst, it would be seen as an act of desperation.
Change Squeak so that it deserves a new name. Then the new name will be perceived as having been earned, and so will serve as an effective marketing tool to advertise the new, improved "Open Source Smalltalk."
--Alan
Then when we have a Squeak kernel image reasonably stripped, call it Squeak--.
And don't you forget less is more (apologies to James, Travis, etc.. for obvious pillage of VW slogan).
Nicolas
David Zmick a écrit :
the artist formerly know as prince lol..
I agree with Mr. Rowledge, other programming languages have considerable strange names(see http://microsoft.toddverbeek.com/lang.html), and they are very successfully, I especially like the name C++ because of the ++ "joke" it has in it.
I personally feel that squeak should stay called squeak!
On Mar 4, 2008, at 12:24 PM, Michael van der Gulik wrote:
"Squeak" is a name that's hard to take seriously, and I for one would be less inclined to advertise that any product I make is based on "Squeak". However, there's a large investment in the name - URLs, source code, public awareness, etc. The name is unlikely to change.
Squeak is not the most professional-sounding name that could have been chosen. One very important purpose of a name is marketing, and the name "Squeak" doesn't do that very well in a few rather important markets. Of course, if you're marketing to children (and those who educate them,) then Squeak is not at all a bad name.
But that's all water under the bridge at this point. Changing the name only, in the absence of any other substantive changes, would at best be ignored as a shameless (and not well-motivated) marketing ploy. At worst, it would be seen as an act of desperation.
Change Squeak so that it deserves a new name. Then the new name will be perceived as having been earned, and so will serve as an effective marketing tool to advertise the new, improved "Open Source Smalltalk."
--Alan
The mouse is Cute!
Every time I launch Squeak the mouse makes me happy. I'm doing serious work with it, and I'm happy while I do so.
Smalltalk is a joy to program in, especially given that I spend my day job working with that stupid coffee language. Let us celebrate the joy.
Long Live Squeak!
On Sun, Mar 2, 2008 at 3:22 AM, K. K. Subramaniam <subbukk@gmail.com mailto:subbukk@gmail.com> wrote:
If we are going to strip Squeak down and rebuild it, should we consider picking a new name for the project? The name Squeak has been around for more than a decade and has strong associations (good or bad) with certain feature sets and intended uses. A legally clear open source base is a good time to invent a new platform that can consolidate the lessons learnt from the Squeak project and build a new system for the next generation - just as Squeak emerged from Smalltalk-80. Spoon? Hydra? Athena? Phoenix? Roar :-)?No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.21.4/1312 - Release Date: 3/4/2008 9:46 PM
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 9:30 AM, Paolo Bonzini bonzini@gnu.org wrote:
a minimal image that is used as a base or a template to create other projects that have different names.
Good luck. :-(
Squeak already is used as a base for other projects! It's a platform, not an end product.
Gulik.
Squeak is a Smalltalk.....all of us understand the same by Smalltalk? Isn't a language......is a lot more..........and also has a language :)
Focusing in products, platforms, etc (I think) is a mistake........Smalltalk deserve a bit more of ambition.
2008/3/5, Michael van der Gulik mikevdg@gmail.com:
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 9:30 AM, Paolo Bonzini bonzini@gnu.org wrote:
a minimal image that is used as a base or a template to create other projects that have different names.
Good luck. :-(
Squeak already is used as a base for other projects! It's a platform, not an end product.
Gulik.
-- http://people.squeakfoundation.org/person/mikevdg http://gulik.pbwiki.com/
Germán Arduino wrote:
Squeak is a Smalltalk.....all of us understand the same by Smalltalk?
No, I don't think I do.
Isn't a language......is a lot more..........and also has a language
Smalltalk is a language and should be (but isn't because of dialect incompatibilities) a class library. Everything else is not Smalltalk, it is "the Smalltalk environment" which you are free to use or not to use.
Heck, not even the image is Smalltalk -- it's just an implementation detail.
I think this "I wanna change the world" attitude is what has kept Smalltalk back in the last 10 years, compared to the more pragmatic view of, say, the Python and Ruby communities.
Paolo
2008/3/6, Paolo Bonzini bonzini@gnu.org:
Germán Arduino wrote:
Squeak is a Smalltalk.....all of us understand the same by Smalltalk?
No, I don't think I do.
Isn't a language......is a lot more..........and also has a language
Smalltalk is a language and should be (but isn't because of dialect incompatibilities) a class library. Everything else is not Smalltalk, it is "the Smalltalk environment" which you are free to use or not to use.
Heck, not even the image is Smalltalk -- it's just an implementation detail.
I don't think so. IMHO the image is one of the strongest points. Is the context that make possible a lot of things. What would be Smalltalk without the image? A language as other gazillion languages?.
I think this "I wanna change the world" attitude is what has kept Smalltalk back in the last 10 years, compared to the more pragmatic view of, say, the Python and Ruby communities.
My point isn't "I wanna change the world", my point is keep that I perceive as a big advantage.
And comparing Smalltalk with Python, Ruby or most of languages I think is a mistake. A big mistake as try to imitate them. May be such efforts, instead following the ideas of the "inventors" that are kept back Squeak.
But, as ever, are only opinions and points of view, that depend of what each of us expect or is interested on.
Paolo
Cheers.
Heck, not even the image is Smalltalk -- it's just an implementation detail.
I don't think so. IMHO the image is one of the strongest points. Is the context that make possible a lot of things.
But it's not like Python or Ruby couldn't have an image, it's just that people did not implement it. The strong point of Smalltalk is the language, period.
I use Smalltalk without an image daily (except as a cache to avoid parsing 100,000 lines of base classes every other minute) and I prefer it a lot over Ruby (I don't do Python).
Paolo
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Heck, not even the image is Smalltalk -- it's just an implementation detail.
I don't think so. IMHO the image is one of the strongest points. Is the context that make possible a lot of things.
But it's not like Python or Ruby couldn't have an image, it's just that people did not implement it. The strong point of Smalltalk is the language, period.
+1 from me. Some time ago someone posted his experiences with writing python image support on this list. Such a dualism could be a great advantage for Smalltalk implementations, because it would attract more people to the language at all and show them the benefits of an image for development. What help the best innovations if no comes to use them?
I use Smalltalk without an image daily (except as a cache to avoid parsing 100,000 lines of base classes every other minute) and I prefer it a lot over Ruby (I don't do Python).
IIRC, you're using/developing GST. I always wanted to try it out, but time can run so fast.... :(
Best regards, Martin
2008/3/6, Paolo Bonzini bonzini@gnu.org:
Heck, not even the image is Smalltalk -- it's just an implementation detail.
I don't think so. IMHO the image is one of the strongest points. Is the context that make possible a lot of things.
But it's not like Python or Ruby couldn't have an image, it's just that people did not implement it.
I'm currently not interested in Python or Ruby :)
The strong point of Smalltalk is the language, period.
In your opinion, not in mine. I love the language, but don't think is the strong point.
I use Smalltalk without an image daily (except as a cache to avoid parsing 100,000 lines of base classes every other minute) and I prefer it a lot over Ruby (I don't do Python).
I respect you opinion and your experience, but not agree. I feel very productive using Smalltalk as an environment, not just as a language.
Paolo
gsa.
On 06/03/2008, Germán Arduino garduino@gmail.com wrote:
2008/3/6, Paolo Bonzini bonzini@gnu.org:
Heck, not even the image is Smalltalk -- it's just an implementation detail.
I don't think so. IMHO the image is one of the strongest points. Is the context that make possible a lot of things.
But it's not like Python or Ruby couldn't have an image, it's just that people did not implement it.
I'm currently not interested in Python or Ruby :)
The strong point of Smalltalk is the language, period.
In your opinion, not in mine. I love the language, but don't think is the strong point.
I use Smalltalk without an image daily (except as a cache to avoid parsing 100,000 lines of base classes every other minute) and I prefer it a lot over Ruby (I don't do Python).
I respect you opinion and your experience, but not agree. I feel very productive using Smalltalk as an environment, not just as a language.
+1 smalltalk without decent dev tools is just another language. Yes, you can do much with it, by having only text editor. But you can do a times faster/better using environment.
-----Mensaje original----- De: squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org] En nombre de Igor Stasenko Enviado el: Jueves, 06 de Marzo de 2008 09:37 Para: The general-purpose Squeak developers list Asunto: Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Renaming "Squeak"
On 06/03/2008, Germán Arduino garduino@gmail.com wrote:
2008/3/6, Paolo Bonzini bonzini@gnu.org:
Heck, not even the image is Smalltalk -- it's just
an implementation detail.
I don't think so. IMHO the image is one of the
strongest points. Is
the context that make possible a lot of things.
But it's not like Python or Ruby couldn't have an image,
it's just that
people did not implement it.
I'm currently not interested in Python or Ruby :)
The strong point of Smalltalk is the language, period.
In your opinion, not in mine. I love the language, but
don't think is
the strong point.
I use Smalltalk without an image daily (except as a
cache to avoid
parsing 100,000 lines of base classes every other
minute) and I prefer
it a lot over Ruby (I don't do Python).
I respect you opinion and your experience, but not agree. I
feel very
productive using Smalltalk as an environment, not just as
a language.
+1 smalltalk without decent dev tools is just another language. Yes, you can do much with it, by having only text editor. But you can do a times faster/better using environment.
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
+1 The language is just a convenient interface we have. Thanks to lots of efforts we have excellent tools to use in the envionment and taking the environmet as platform. To produce software with a Smalltalk which has not that environment (image), beside to feel kind of raw these days, I guess will induce the developer himself to think about the "convenient" language is REALLY convenient.
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 12:19 PM, Paolo Bonzini bonzini@gnu.org wrote:
But it's not like Python or Ruby couldn't have an image, it's just that people did not implement it. The strong point of Smalltalk is the language, period.
Couldn't disagree more. The language is clean, simple and nice. But so is Lisp, Lisp is fact simpler and more powerful. Still I can develop things "from scratch" faster in Smalltalk. Why? Because I can just create a class that I think is close to what I want, develop things in the debugger, inspector and so on "watching it grow as I go". The "eternally running" nature of the image, and the way all tools are created to take advantage of that puts it ahead of even Lisp for me, because Lisp, despite being incrementally compiled, still seems to want a separation between what the system is "on paper" and runtime.
On Thu, Mar 6, 2008 at 11:37 AM, Paolo Bonzini bonzini@gnu.org wrote:
Germán Arduino wrote:
I think this "I wanna change the world" attitude is what has kept Smalltalk back in the last 10 years, compared to the more pragmatic view of, say, the Python and Ruby communities.
Paolo
I disagree. In fact, I think Erlang has shown us that if anything Smalltalk should go further (e.g. automatically make better use of available CPUs).
From what I have understood of the history, the thing that kept
Smalltalk and Lisp back has been money. These two superior solutions simply costed more then inferior solutions, and these lessor solutions were even free. True that Smalltalk/Lisp are more productive environments, but how much is that worth for an idea that you're not even sure if it will work?
The most ironic thing for me is; lots of people in the "open source" community have the silly idea that the world is moving toward some kind of "gift society", based on the success of "free software". The reality is that so called "free software" is simply another demonstration of effective capitalism, specifically the "loss leader" [1] strategy.
Smalltalk and Lisp didn't lose because they were less effective, inferior, alien or any of those things. They lost in plain simple capitalism [2].
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loss_leader [2] Well, early on performance concerns were also an issue, but based on technologies that actually did get used, I'm guessing this concern was not as big as we think.
> a minimal image that is used as a base > or a template to create other projects that have different names. Good luck. :-(Squeak already is used as a base for other projects! It's a platform, not an end product.
Good luck convincing people that a web browser does not belong in the base image.
Paolo
2008/3/6, Paolo Bonzini bonzini@gnu.org:
> a minimal image that is used as a base > or a template to create other projects that have different names. Good luck. :-(Squeak already is used as a base for other projects! It's a platform, not an end product.
Good luck convincing people that a web browser does not belong in the base image.
hehe, I'm wondering how many mails will deserve the definition of the things to include on "the base image".
On Wednesday 05 March 2008 1:54:34 am Michael van der Gulik wrote:
I've thought about this too. "Squeak" is a name that's hard to take seriously, and I for one would be less inclined to advertise that any product I make is based on "Squeak". However, there's a large investment in the name - URLs, source code, public awareness, etc. The name is unlikely to change.
I wasn't thinking of rebranding an existing project when I proposed a new name. Seriously, Squeak has fallen behind times and that is not good for an innovative research platform. Both Smalltalk-80 and Squeak (1995) stood out from the rest because they were years ahead of the rest and brought in many innovative ways of controlling a computer (that we all take for granted now). Today, Squeak struggles to handle multilingual text, scalable vector graphics, multicore, 64-bit space, flash memory - features commonly available in other programming environments. Research initiatives are split amongst multiple projects like Fonc (VPRI), Croquet, Etoys (OLPC) etc. Whatever project emerges out of Squeak should act as a core platform for inventing new and efficient methods of programming.
The XO hardware shows what can happen in a couple of years if a handful of people put their minds together to build a new platform. The software stack on XO shows us that we are still a long way off in knowing how to program such a system efficiently :-(.
One of the tasks for the new board will to be figure out a way to converge disparate efforts, individual and commercial, into a single project; to get all the wood behind one arrow. It would be far easier to do this under a new name than to do it under "Squeak".
Choose any name except Squawk :-).
Subbu
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
Alan Lovejoy -
Andreas Raab -
Claus Kick -
David Zmick -
Diogenes Moreira -
dpharris＠telus.net -
Esteban Lorenzano -
Francisco A. Lizarralde -
Germán Arduino -
Igor Stasenko -
Jason Johnson -
Jeffrey Straszheim -
K. K. Subramaniam -
Ken Causey -
Martin Beck -
merlyn＠stonehenge.com -
Michael van der Gulik -
nicolas cellier -
Paolo Bonzini -
Sean Heber -
Sebastian Sastre -
tim Rowledge