Hi

thanks to let me know that I was pissing off people and be rude. This 
was not my intention at least not the first level one.
	- then I appreciate discussion,
	- I value sharing,
	- I value the camp spirit,
	- note that if you do not want our changes no problem,
	- finally I was just fed up to read thing that were not fitting the 
original intention of the change
	(because sure I want to have any class provide good creation 
interface, I said that all the time
	in my lecture)
	- but there are arguments such as ANSI compatibility that do not hold
	- finally I can tell you that on one hand I would like to have 
backwards compatibility but
	on the other hand I would like to move on.
	- finally I agree with andreas about this idea of an entry barrier 
that I would like to lower

> And after all, all anyone has done is *argue* with you and *given you
> feedback*, not tried to take your Badge of Squeaky Cleaning Power away.

I do not have this badge, you are free to participate in cleaning. For 
us this is more a charge
and frustration than an idea of power. and we always pay attention not 
to mix research and KCP
and to be sure that this is for the better.
Do you think that I order roel or noury or even nathanael. We share a 
common vision that's it. and we have
a ***lot*** of discussions on the topics. So may be for me this was 
just that this is an old stuff that we talked
about so many times that I was just bored...

I was stupid to send this email. But I learned.

Stef


On Jeudi, sep 18, 2003, at 16:34 Europe/Zurich, Bijan Parsia wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, ducasse wrote:
>
>>> Personally, I *like* the Camp Smalltalk spirit which is to try to
>>> provide
>>> common things (tools, kits, etc.) for all dialects and
>>> implementations. To
>>> build de facto standards. SUnit being a shining example.
>>
>> Me too. So what is the point.
>
> The point, the real point, was "buried" in the section you snipped. 
> Let me
> be blunt: Your "sad" remarks went well over into the completley rude. 
> The
> generality of them meant they struck most everyone. Please clean up 
> your
> remarks with the same passion that you seek to clean up code.
>
> Plus, I'll note that this very long disucussion wasn't pointless or 
> futile
> and led to an exploration of the design space that generated genuinely
> novel designs.
>
> My point about the Camp Smalltalk spirit is that trying to work *with* 
> the
> larger smalltalk community has value. We are not the source of all
> innovation nor of all ugly innovation. To the degree that we *can* stay
> ANSI, I think many are served, so I don't think that's irrelevant.
>
>> We should stay and watch vendors not been
>> able to move or introduce
>> ugly namespace or pragmas and follow...really cool.
>
> Oh piffle. Really, grow up. I never suggested the REMOTE like and have
> railed agaist VW like namespaces in the past. The point being not all
> change is good, and not all change happens here. So your supposed 
> "stodgy
> Smalltalkers" are, largely, a myth. Of course you think your changes 
> are
> good and simple and so easy that we should all roll over to your 
> wisdom.
> How dare we *challenge* and *debate* your *improvements*?! How dare we
> stop progress! How dare we prevent Squeak from being all that you can 
> make
> it to be?
>
> Plus, there's always Slate and SmallScript and...there's plenty of 
> *good*
> innovation out there, often because they *do* toss even the legacy code
> Squeak has.
>
>> I think that we should stop thinking that this new/initialize pattern
>> will break the
>> dialect independence of the code.
>
> Personally, if I'm to stop thinking something, I prefer to be 
> persuaded by
> argument, not commanded. (If incompatibility is a problem, then MORE
> incompatibility isn't necessarily *neutral*. But I'm *not* arguing for 
> or
> against this addition. I'm arguing against tarring the rest of us as
> unclean luddites.)
>
> (Not that I actually CARE much about this issue. I see points on either
> side. I'm somewhat familar with the ObjC similar debate. I personally
> would prefer, as Richard does, a better, perhaps bigger solution.)
>
>> Come on open your eyes. There are
>> much more incompatibility
>> between the dialects even if they would all pass the ANSI tests.
>
> I'm not going to debate this point. MY POINT is that I would prefer if 
> you
> (and Andreas) didn't make these gratuitous and nasty remarks about the
> rest of us. And the general point that "appeal to mass acceptance" is
> generally bogus, even in its "make it easier for newbies" guise.
>
>
>
> Now, bring on that Java (C#? no, XML!!!) Syntax!
>
> Cheers,
> Bijan "The SchoolYard Taunting, I-sentencing Fiend" Parsia.
>
> P.S. NO!!! I've been INFECTED with the Richard RAISED VOICE by caps
> INFLECTION pattern! But only a *little*.
> P.P.S. And this is the last I hope to say about this.
> P.P.P.S. I was going to say that this was the last I *was* going to say
> about this, but, well, who would believe that? A promise you break is 
> sad,
> but a promise that no one REMOTELY beleives you will keep is just 
> silly!
> P.P.P.P.S. Er..so is this, actually. But I *could not* resist.
>
>