Back to the issue... (was RE: Squeak coding style...)

Trygve Reenskaug trygver at ifi.uio.no
Wed Mar 3 20:43:47 UTC 2004


Goran,
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!

We need to get innovations out quickly, even if they are dirty. (I really 
need the stuff I'm using right now. It would have been nice if it had been 
more complete. But this is much better than not having it at all.

But a package shouldn't be upgraded to a *standard package* before it 
fulfills a few quality requirements - and that includes a minimum of 
comments and/or documentation.

We want to experiment freely.
And we want a standard release that newcomers can use without going mad.

I was ashamed when I heard that while it takes 12 months to become 
proficient in C++, it takes a year for Smalltalk.
(Claimed in the halls at an OOPSLA many years ago)

--Trygve
(I'm not yet fully into the Squeak community and may be talking out of turn)



At 03.03.2004 20:22, you wrote:
>Colin Putney <cputney at wiresong.ca> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
>Of course. But... sigh.
>- I am only talking about simple small things automatically enforceable.
>- And I am only talking about the standard packages.
>
>Either I am not making sense or noone is listening, whichever it ends
>with this posting.
>
> > 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.)
>
>Not the best pretty printer in the world will fix for example:
>- Class comments
>- Proper english sentences
>
> > 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.
>
>Well then, as I said. It ends right there. The lack of support in this
>is quite telling.
>Thanks for listening.
>
> > Colin
>
>regards, Göran


-- 

Trygve Reenskaug      mailto: trygver at ifi.uio.no
Morgedalsvn. 5A       http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~trygver
N-0378 Oslo           Tel: (+47) 22 49 57 27
Norway





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list