Stephane Ducasse <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
> > These goals are, imho, incompatible between them.  If we want to see 
> > the
> > next shift, let's forget about compatibility, stability, documentacion,
> > etc.  On the other side, if we want to see a "solid" smalltalk to
> > create "standard" business applications, let's forget about eToys, 
> > Croquet,
> > etc.
> I do not believe in this separation. As a person experimenting with new 

I tend to agree with Stephane. The separation is good to be aware of,
but for most of the issues we are discussing we should be able to "live
peacefully together".

The issues that are harder to think about is when we end up trying to
change tha core "Smalltalk" in Squeak. The best current example is
Traits. If we "bless" Traits to become a core package of Squeak then
Squeak is no longer "Smalltalk". Right? At least in some sense.

Well, somebody says - you don't *have* to use Traits. Sure, but people
*will*. For example, if we clean up Collections (as Nathanael has done)
then Traits will become fundamental in Squeak.

*That* is a pink/blue issue (and frankly I don't really know what I
think about this specific question). Making Morphic better isn't IMHO.

regards, Göran