Hey Goran, let's do indeed be careful not to drift down a slippery
slope.  Quality does matter.

Your water analogy seems to show our difference nicely.  You want a high
*percentage* of good, commented code.  I want a high *volume* of good
code.  I think that uncommented code can still be pretty darned good,
and thus that usually:

	X + (good, uncommented code)  >  X
	
A decent way to getting a higher volume of commented code is to put
uncommented code in there and thus make it easy for people to contribute.
If we reject code then we spoil the open source process we have going
and make it hard for people to fix (comment) the code.  But of course,
putting in uncommented code reduces the *percentage* of commented code,
perhaps indefinitely.

I agree the *percentage* of good code would be important if Squeak were at
a stage that it is worth picking it up and studying it.  However, I think
Squeak is at a much earlier stage right now.  It is likely that huge
chunks of it will be tossed entirely before we get within reach of the
next system that is really a crystaline beauty worthy of study.  In the
meantime, functionality is extremely worthwhile, because it lets people
do experiments.

In short, why would the *percentage* of clear code be more important
than the *volume* of clear code?


-Lex