Tim Rowledge <tim at sumeru.stanford.edu> wrote:
> 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.

I agree to all you wrote. I also hope the adoption/inclusion/packaging
of Flow turns out in a good way - it's neat stuff and I would surely
like to have it available to depend on.

regards, Göran