goran.hultgren at bluefish.se is claimed by the authorities to have written:

> Anthony Hannan <ajh18 at cornell.edu> wrote:
> > Proceeding incrementally is fine, but I still think we need to discuss
> > and decide which final "elegant" package design we want.  Then we will
> > have a goal that will provide a road map for the incremental changes,
> > and avoid incremental changes that may later be harder to adapt to the
> > goal.
> 
> Well, I agree that discussion is good. Otherwise I wouldn't reply! :-)
> But I also think that "just doing it" is also good - we learn by doing
> and Grand Plans that aren't implemented are *by definition* inferior to
> Simple Solutions that are.
Oftentimes some doing needs to be part of the planning. And some
planning needs to be part of that self-same doing. Expecting a Big Plan
up front usually doesn't work any better than
hackety-hack-oh-look-what-I-have.

Particularly in a system like Squeak that is supposed to be evolving
towards a truly neat thing, it makes even less sense to be too rigid.
That's what makes me laugh and cry at the same time when I see arguments
like the recent nonsense about Flow. When something is broken, it would
be nice to fix it. If that means having to change some code that was
working around problems with the replaced code - well, that's life.
sometimes you have to suck it up and move along.

tim

-- 
Tim Rowledge, tim at sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
Life would be much easier if I had the source code.