Survey finally published etc

Hi!

Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote:
In the recent discussions in the IO team (well, on IRC anyway) that was
the idea (Flow).

> For example, I hope that if we ever get a new
> compiler, this would be done in a way that the old compiler can be
> loaded and used side-by-side. For example, if we ever get a new set of
> tools, I would hope that... etc.

Another good example would be a new Collection hierarchy based on
Traits. I proposed such an approach a long time ago (building a separate
"New Collections" package) - instead of changing the current quite old
and crufty but oh so very fundamental Collection hierarchy.

And one of the reasons for that approach was the strong resistance from
some parts of our community regarding even very small and obvious
improvements (like adding a #removeAll method with efficient
implementations in the different classes) - so don't underestimate the
views of the die hard Smalltalk-conservatives in our community. ;)

And while on the subject of Traits - personally I would not start using
it in base classes until it has settled in and become an accepted and a
bit more mature part of Squeak. But as I said, no harm in using it in
*parallell* implementations, like "New Collections".

So yes, I agree with you Andreas - parallell development should be the
norm, whenever it isn't utterly impractical.

> Cheers,
>    - Andreas

Cheers, Göran

On 24 janv. 06, at 22:39, [hidden email] wrote:

>
> We will see. Just let it be noted that I am worried. I am worried  
> about
> it getting done at all and I am worried about too few people  
> showing up
> to vote.

What? should we already vote? how should we vote?
Where is the announce?

Stef

On 1/25/06, Andreas Raab <[hidden email]> wrote:
> For example, I hope that if we ever get a new
> compiler, this would be done in a way that the old compiler can be
> loaded and used side-by-side. For example, if we ever get a new set of
> tools, I would hope that... etc.
>
Well, I think that if people have an interest in that, they are
welcome to step forward and implement all these compatibility packages
:-). If I'm going to help out rewriting files and sockets, though,
it's not going to be a goal very high on the list (probably use new
primitives, so the old ones can still be used, and maybe provide a
backwards compatible basic API for the simple&straightforward users,
but that should still break plenty of code).

But personally, I'm of the persuation that even if we make Squeak 4.0
in a language hitherto unknown, that won't mean that suddenly version
3.9 will stop working. It's not like a new version and an old version
behave like some pair of Fermions, where only one of the pair can in
be a certain state (like, "working" ;-)). My current commercial Squeak
project uses 3.8(wx0.4) and will do that for the foreseeable future.

Plus, I believe more in "helping people move forward tools" than in
"helping people sit still" tools. As I argued before, I think with the
RB's Rewrite tool we have plenty of opportunity to make moving forward
as easy as hitting a button.

On Tue, 24 Jan 2006, tim Rowledge wrote:

Isn't this "random" number generator *designed* by someone
*intelligent?!?! Eh? Eh?!!!

> Makes you wonder how so many people
> cannot cope with the idea of randomness causing evolution.

How can we know that this isn't just a test by the timgod into *FOOLING*
us that the earth is > 6000 years old. EH!??!?!?!?

> tim
> --
> tim Rowledge; [hidden email]; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
> To err is human; to really foul things up requires a computer.

Ah, the stupid design argument. Since
Windows/Java/YourFavoriteLameButPopularTech is SO bad, it could not have
gotten that way by accident! Ergo, an all powerful (marketing), but
stupid, deity.

Cheers,
Bijan "random like a fox" Parsia.