Hi Avi--

> ...provide the functionality in the simplest way possible and get
> people using it, then bring the toolset up to snuff and get rid of
> the hack you used to bootstrap with.  PackageInfo is a perfect
> example of this: it's a laughably simple and naive way of specifying
> package information, but it got people actually marking their class
> extensions in a consistent way - such that if/when we come up with
> something better, it'll be trivial to convert existing packages to
> it.

	In my experience, the hacks tend to live on for far too long, ruining
the value proposition with regard to energy spent vs. utility.

	Of course, I'm happy to see exceptions to this. :)  The usual problem
is that the hacks demotivate work on the "right thing". I think the
chances for success are best when there are people thinking about both
tactical varieties from the beginning.

	Also, this particular situation is special. I happen to be working on a
system which is different from the ground up already
(http://netjam.org/squat ), so it's no surprise that I would favor a
solution to this issue that doesn't require backward compatibility. :)


-C

--
Craig Latta
http://netjam.org/resume
craig at netjam.org
[|] Proceed for Truth!