Andreas Raab <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org> said:
>To me, this is the logical result of many of the shortcomings of Smalltalk.
>For example, subclassing for using the framework. 
Ok, these are the shortcomings. You suggest that 'more like Etoys' would
be a solution, but could you be a bit more concrete? If subclassing is
bad (agreed on many counts), is composition a la Traits better?

>[...]. Of
>course, such an environment would no longer be "Smalltalk" - but in order to
>protect the critical system notions we simply HAVE to get rid of it or at
>least some of its intrinsically dangerous notions when it comes to an open,
>easily usable, and still robust environment.
>
a) define "Smalltalk", b) modify the definition until it matches the
system you get after you fix its shortcomings, c) continue calling it
"Smalltalk". 

IMHO, "Smalltalk" is more a philosophy than a product (Smalltalk-80) or
a standards document (ANSI Smalltalk), so I see no problems in fixing
Squeak here...

-- 
Cees de Groot               http://www.cdegroot.com     <cg at cdegroot.com>
GnuPG 1024D/E0989E8B 0016 F679 F38D 5946 4ECD  1986 F303 937F E098 9E8B
Cogito ergo evigilo