On Mar 3, 2004, at 1:25 PM, goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:

> Ok, so in short you think it is pointless to even *try*? And how would
> we ever be able to evolve Squeak with say Traits if we can't even agree
> on some simple, small coding conventions *in the standard packages*?
>
> Again - please people, come on! Can't at least some of you say "Hey, 
> you
> got a point here. Perhaps we could try to introduce a few standard
> conventions in our *standard packages*."?! And then we can take the
> discussion from there.
>
> If not - then it truly disappoints me, I really thought this community
> was... capable of constructive cooperation instead of petty "No, I 
> don't
> like this or that!" or "Forget it, no point..."

Actually, I don't think it's petty at all. Given that:

1. Style is a very subjective thing, and it will be difficult to get a 
community consensus.

2. Pretty printers can help by ensuring that those who are really 
annoyed by bad style don't have to look at it. (Ok, the currently 
available pretty-printer isn't ideal, but still.)

3. Even when badly styled, Smalltalk is one of the most readable 
programming languages available.

I think it's reasonable to conclude that the initial effort required to 
reach a consensus and the on-going effort required to enforce it 
wouldn't be worth the benefits it would bring. I'd characterize this 
position as "Our energies are better spent elsewhere," rather than 
"Forget it, no point..."

Clearly you disagree, and that's great. But part of constructive 
cooperation is deciding on priorities, and style conventions don't seem 
to be high on many people's lists.

Colin