brian.murphydye at mac.com
Sun Dec 19 05:33:35 UTC 2004
An earlier comment by Avi suggested adding a prefix to Flow's stream
classes so that both the current stream classes and Flow's stream
classes could run in parallel. However, if Flow is the future, perhaps
it would be better to add the prefix to the current stream classes
instead. This would force all current projects to be converted to the
new class names, but would make the future cleaner.
However, what I hear Craig saying is that he wants to resolve some
other issues before including Flow into the current release of Squeak,
and that there are some packaging issues which *may* prevent it from
ever being included. Because of the great work Craig has done, not to
mention the potential benefits of Flow and a minimal system, it would
be sad if this stays relegated to a spoon :-)
On Dec 18, 2004, at 2:09 PM, Ken G. Brown wrote:
> With respect to Craig's 'Flow', I have been thinking about the inertia
> caused by the perceived need to make major system changes backward
> I used to think that my current situation in life has been determined
> as a result of the sum total of past events and I was sorta stuck with
> what had gone before. Now, I prefer to think of my present as being
> determined by my desired future. Get a clear picture in mind of the
> desired future and today's decisions become much easier, being made
> towards achieving the desired future.
> At each decision point, the decision can be made towards improving the
> quality of that future picture by bringing it into clearer focus.
> From this point of view, I think it may be best to get a clear view of
> the future of Squeak, then do today what is necessary to create that
> picture without worrying about the backward compatibility. Those that
> need to and want to, will do the required changes to also partake in
> that desired future, those that don't can remain with whatever works
> for them. The backwards compatibility issues I believe could most
> appropriately be dealt with by those parts of the system that have the
> issues, thereby reducing the inertia for going forward.
> In the past, if this way of thinking would have been in vogue, we
> would most likely already be running with Craig's 'Flow' in the
> system. I'm assuming from other opinions that would be a good thing...
> The desired future of Squeak determines what we do today, as opposed
> to what was done in the past...
> Of course.
> Mark Twain evidently wrote: "Twenty years from now you will be more
> disappointed by the things you didn't do than the ones you did."
> Ken G. Brown
More information about the Squeak-dev