Is a SkyHook Safe[Re: Is Set growth thread-safe?]
jwalsh at bigpond.net.au
jwalsh at bigpond.net.au
Fri Sep 23 20:56:49 UTC 2005
I strongly object to that remark Rado.
I do not troll, I target a very specific problem, which very few on this list will take seriously, and I stick to it, until I get an answer.
Personal insults will not drive me from the issue.
I have always strongly defended my point of few, which I believe to be relevant to the very survival and or success of Smalltalk80.
If you do not have an answer to my question, then why make a comment at all.
Snide remarks from the gallary, is in fact a very old, and nasty tactic.
You have the choice Rado to ingnore the topic and move on.
I do not deny that my comments are NOT targeted at Programming, but at Design.
Smalltalk is an IDE, not a just a Language, there is Development too.
In fact IDE does not even refer to a specific Language at all.
Development covers a wide spectrum from the IDEA to Implementation.
Last but not least it is supposed to be Integrated.
Integration is the very thing which is threatened by the extreme OPEN factions.
It is impossible to programm your way out of a mess.
Design it out.
I consider Programming per se to be the skill equivalent of laying bricks.
Bricklayers don't necessarily Design nor do they Architect houses.
The same applies for Computer Systems.
The number of Computer Assisted Design systems available, is few.
But Languages? there are hundreds and growing by the day.
Just take a look at Wikipedia "hello world" and you will see what I mean.
I'll leave it at that
---- radoslav hodnicak <rh at 4096.sk> wrote:
> I say go back to trolling the vwnc list, or preferably some
> smalltalk-unrelated list.
> thanks, rado
> On Fri, 23 Sep 2005, jwalsh at bigpond.net.au wrote:
> > Sorry for the rude subject line.
> > Most may not know what a SkyHook is, and for those who don't, it is a joke.
> > There is a limit to the number of "work-arounds", even for Smalltalk.
> > Smalltalk is simply not designed for it. [yet].
> > Ref:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISC > RISC: Definition and Much More From Answers.com :
> > I think the above definition is not bad and will a serve as a solid Principle upon which to build anArgument:
> > 1. Smalltalk as an IDE should not need to call upon extranious program support, unless it respects the rules of Smalltalk. That is why it is called IDE.
> > 2. The Smalltalk problems are ALL introduced ones.
> > 3. Smalltalk demands the "Software be Designed First and Programmed Later".
> > If the intended Application Software Design, prior to coding Smalltalk (or any other language for that matter), were given the same RISC teatment in software, as in RISC hardware, then we'd have less RISK.
> > Furthermore, I sugget, many of the tactics provided so far , would be unecessary.
> > What say you?
More information about the Squeak-dev