On Thursday, June 5, 2003, at 04:33 AM, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:

> I'm not arguing in theory. In fact, we've heard very few such
> complaints, so it's a non-issue. Maybe it will be one day - just not
> today.
>
> BTW, I am talking about Squeak specifically, not about Smalltalk
> generally. VW does have namespaces, and they might or might not be 
> happy
> with them. No idea really.
>
> For now, Squeak has well over 1000 classes in the image, and nothings
> blown up yet ;-)

Agree. Namespaces require anyway a registration mechanism. I'm still 
not convinced by their advantages in VW. This was more a marketing 
feature (java has package we have namespaces).

Stef

>
> Daniel
>
> JOEL SHELLMAN <joelhelenshellman at comcast.net> wrote:
>>> This is especially dumb because in the Squeak world, almost nobody is
>>> actually complaining about problem 2 interfering with their day to 
>>> day
>>> life. Some people fantasize about how important it is, but we don't
>>> really see the problem in practice.
>>
>> Really? I've had to deal with #2 above all the time in the Java world.
>> What is it about smalltalk that would make this less an issue? When
>> you're working with hundreds or even thousands of classes (which
>> happens often enough), it would be crazy to have to have them all 
>> named
>> differently without namespaces, wouldn't it?
>>
>> -joel
>