I wrote:
    > I'm already quite fed up with the amazing number of methods in
    > the 'as yet unclassified' category; I'm not looking forward to
    > a matching number of classes in a similar class category.

"Lex Spoon" <lex at cc.gatech.edu> replied:
	But do you really want to disallow 'as yet unclassified' methods?

I have made it a rule in my Smalltalk programming *never* to perpetrate
an 'as yet unclassified' method myself.  Once or twice when I was getting
started or felt really lazy, I did that.  Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea
maxima culpa.  Never again.  The only reason I can see for not classifying
a method that you are about to write is because you don't know what it is
going to be about, and in that case, why are you writing it?  As a _reader_
of Smalltalk, I find 'as yet unclassified' methods such a pain (not least
because they are usually without any helpful comments either) that YES
I darned well WOULD like to disallow 'as yet unclassified' methods.

There is _always_ something better to put a method under than
'as yet unclassified'.  If nothing else, 'unclassified command' -vs-
'unclassified query' would be a clue about whether the thing was supposed
to change the receiver's state or not.

	And I like having a class and category around to muck in. 

When I'm working with students, it's nice if _they_ are using
class category 'JoeStudent-461' and _I_ are using 'ROK-461' so that
I can file their mucking-around category into my image and vice versa.
If we all mucked around in the same category it wouldn't be so nice.

Creating a class category and a class is a good beginning exercise in
using a Browser.
My daughters are nearly five and a bit over seven and a half.
It's so _easy_ to do everything for them; it feels so unkind to
insist "YOU can do that.  No, you CAN do that.  You'd be surprised
what you can do.  Go on, try."  It is not clear to me that it is a
kindness to provide "canned" "no-brainer" defaults.