At 12:01 PM +1200 5/31/2000, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
>	Your thesis, as expressly stated and reiterated, was that Smalltalk
>	didn't include low lines "because it simply _couldn't_.  The fact
>	that it was possible to have used Smalltalk on machines that
>	"couldn't" in 1980 does not prove your point any more than the fact
>	that it is equally possible to use those machines today.
>
>I *do* so wish that people would take the rather minor trouble to read
>carefully and think about what they read.

An interesting, albeit ad hominem, remark.  I didssent.  Reasonable 
people who actually care about this (probably an oxymoron) may review 
the archives and decide for themselves.

Mr. O'Keefe continues:

>My point about the 1980s VMS printers *of course* doesn't prove anything
>about Smalltalk-80, nor was it intended to.  *READ IN CONTEXT* it quite
>obviously was intended only to rebut the claim that ASCII was everywhere
>in use and everywhere the same.


I agree with Mr. O'Keefe's statement that his point about printers 
doesn't prove anything about Smalltalk-80.  It is from that point 
where our views diverge.  But here is what Mr. O'Keefe did write, 
after a lengthy discussion about the merits and history of word 
separators:


>At 11:02 AM +1200 5/30/2000, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
>>Not the least of the defects in the BaStudlyCaps style is that when you
>>have to refer to an acronym in one of them it becomes ambiguous.
>>Even when it's not ambiguous, "DOM_Core" is clearer than "DOMCore".
>>(For some reason, especially in handwriting, the C tends to be hard
>>to see in that one.)
>>
>>I suppose one key difference is whether you intend a multi-word identifier
>>to be percieved as multiple words (as I do) or as a single `word'.
>>
>>Let us not lose sight of the fact that Smalltalk (like Pascal) originally
>>didn't include low lines because it simply _couldn't_; the first version
>>of ASCII just plain didn't include them.  (Pascal was actually constrained
>>by another character set.)  When the Pascal standard was revised (giving
>>ISO Pascal Extended), that technological barrier to good naming no longer
>>existed, so it was dropped.  When the Smalltalk standard was produced,
>>that technological barrier to good naming no longer existed, so it 
>>was dropped.
>>
>>Clinging to BaStudlyCaps because "that's the way it has always been done
>>in Smalltalk" (as another person suggested) would be like insisting that
>>Fortran stick with 6-letter identifiers forever.  Thank goodness the F90
>>committee didn't swallow that kind of argument.

That proposition being challenged in the following colloquy, he wrote:

At 3:14 PM +1200 5/30/2000, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
>	> Let us not lose sight of the fact that Smalltalk (like 
>Pascal) originally
>	> didn't include low lines because it simply _couldn't_; the 
>first version
>	> of ASCII just plain didn't include them.
>
>	Really?
>Yes.
>
>	This is historically correct?
>Yes.
>
>	With all the wierd glyphs, I'm surprised.  Can you give a source
>	(or would someone form SqCentral care to comment)?
>
>CACM, 1960-something.  Go to your local museum of computing and take
>a look at the keyboard of a Model 33 Teletype.  There were quite a few

the now-unnotorious "printer discussion."  And, finally:

At 5:31 PM +1200 5/30/2000, Richard A. O'Keefe wrote:
>	Ahem.  Squeak derives from Smalltalk 80, named after the year 1980.
>
>So what?  I've seen VMS sites still using printers in the early 80s
>where _ printed as <-.

The accusation that I hadn't read postings came in reply to my 
observation that these remarks merely beg the question whether 
"Smalltalk (like Pascal) originally didn't include low lines because 
it simply _couldn't_."  I agree his response was non-responsive to 
that point.  Indeed, far from losing or ignoring context, I believe 
that my response merely refocused (indeed by quoting from context) 
what had become a tedious and hopelessly rambling non-discussion.

So, reasonable people may decide for themselves whether the context 
of this discussion manifests a lack of due attention to Mr. O'Keefes 
postings.  Since Mr. O'Keefe now admits that he has proved nothing 
about Smalltalk, let alone Squeak, and, in fact, claims his writing 
is, in fact, unrelated thereto, I'll simply leave the merits of the 
issue alone and move on.

The trolling having gotten out of control, this will be my last post 
in response to Mr. O'Keefe.  He may have the field to himself.

-- 
Andrew C. Greenberg		acg at netwolves.com
V.P. Eng., R&D, 		813.885.2779 (office)
Netwolves Corporation		813.885.2380 (facsimile)
www.netwolves.com