"Andreas Raab" <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:

> To me, this is the logical result of many of the shortcomings of Smalltalk.
> For example, subclassing for using the framework. When we subclass a
> framework class like Morph in Smalltalk we do not *use* that class but
> rather we *modifiy* it. We are able to access unprotected instance state
> (look at the ridiculous comment in Morph>>bounds) we are able to override
> system critical methods in incompatible ways. Even the tutorials (like the
> one up at Squeak.org) teach you that it's okay to break the framework in
> order to use it (in this concrete example, it lacks calls to any of the
> "super" methods even though this is required by the framework).

OK, having a better way to aggregate instead of subclassing would be
fine.
Nathanael Schaerli is developing interesting ideas in this area.

However on a more technical cleanup level I think the existing
possibilites
of Smalltalk are not yet exhausted.

There should be some clean-up in the Morphic class hierarchy. But before
this can be done an agreement on the mechanisms to keep has to be
reached.

And for this we need better documentation of the concepts and the code.


Hannes