About KCP and automatic initialize

goran.krampe at bluefish.se goran.krampe at bluefish.se
Tue Sep 16 15:59:04 UTC 2003


Daniel Vainsencher <danielv at netvision.net.il> wrote:
> goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
> > Hmmm. Sortof syntactic sugar for constructors. Ok, before people start
> > shouting -
> Well, I think it stinks. I completely agree that making understanding the 

:-)

> meta level a merely optional step in the route to writing a "hello world" 
> would be nice, but if we're going to change the language, we should 
> IMO get (much) more leverage than that. If we're not really picky, we'll
> lose any claim to simplicity and power in no time.

Good point of course. As I said - I haven't decided. But I think it is
interesting to at least *talk* about improvements/evolution of "Squeak
the language". Btw, this particular issue could actually be turned into
a "tool issue" instead easily!

So without dwelling further on this I just want to say that I often find
the Squeak community to be... very conservative. I mean, even the most
obvious improvements often get argued about. The #removeAll issue still
haunts me in that respect.

Please let us have an open atmosphere about evolving Squeak.
 
> > if we add the above in 3.7 we could easily wait with some kind of "final
> > decision" on it until 3.8.
> Hmm, what is SqueakMap for again, then?

Eh, well - sure. But I am not certain that *language* level
enhancements/changes are best served as packages on SM. As always, I am
open for arguments, but it sure sounds like it could lead to forks in no
time. :)

> Daniel

regards, Göran



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list