goran.hultgren at bluefish.se wrote:
> Anyway, I agree - "the CODE is NOT as simple as can be". I have also
> seen parts of it that easily could be refactored - but that is to be
> expected I think, this is kindof hard stuff. What I think I wrote about
> is the model with Modules/DeltaModules.

The main point is not that the code could be made simpler - it is that
it is very complex. If I toss a fridge from the second floor for you to
catch, the point is not that it has food in it that could emptied first.
The point is you're dead! That's where Squeak 3.3 is - wearing a fridge
for a hat and going nowhere.
 
> > 2. Many of the things explained are not implemented, so the theories
> > given about what the semantics of various parts should be can't be
> > tested. In short, it's incomplete. 
> 
> True again. But we all know that, right?
Again, the point is not that it's not quite done and could be. What I
wanted to say is - don't sell me something that doesn't exist.
DeltaModules cannot be used in the ways described now, and when I did
use them, it didn't look like it's just around the corner, either.
 
> True. We do have a problem. But what should we do?
> I think we should dig in and try to work through it. Do you instead
> propose to dump it all and start from fresh?

I propose to be honest to ourselves. Nobody is saying he has a vision
for 3.3a as a viable development version. So why are we sitting here
stewing in our juices? is it a kind of sport?

[What are you saying -]
> b) The code is a "bad start" and should be dumped?

The modules code (as well as other sources) should be studied carefully
by people interested in small, simple projects, that incrementally and
completely add to 3.2 a single, factored piece of what modules promised.

1. You're doing the "project namespace" more usefully than module paths
did them. 
2. Avi is doing the "manage large chunks of code" in a simpler, more
usable way than modules and DMs did (I have actually released the RB
both ways. Modules took a few days work, using ModuleFiler took about 2
hours - though I admit to having learned between them). 
3. I have a project on hold to allow detecting cyclic dependencies.
Right now it is less complete than henrik's (not a subset - it does
something else), but it won't require you to fileout in an incompatible
format, and it is easier to retarget to different definitions of
modules. 

I wouldn't have done my own work before studying Henrik's, and Joseph's,
and other people can benefit the same way.

Anyway, I think we're already en route to get most of the benefits that
people will actually use as it is. We just need unmoor ourselves from
this rut, and go back to sailing the seas free.

> regards, Göran

friend, not foe  :-)
Daniel Vainsencher