problem in porting from smalltalk
Andreas Raab
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Fri Feb 24 10:03:03 UTC 2006
<meta>
Not that I personally care that much about this particular name but you
are touching a sore point here. That point is that in too many
situations I have seen people copying really screwed up stuff from VW[*]
and other systems just because they can't change it there and don't want
to work around the differences. What happens then is that you are
actively making Squeak worse by repeating a bad decision (even worse:
you are repeating it although you have the benefit of hindsight) where
instead you should be fixing the mistake and help make Squeak a better
system.
And yes, I understand that this is inconvenient if you care about
compatibility but slavishly repeating everything VW does will only get
you a VW clone, not a better system.
</meta>
[*] My pet peeve these days: Proliferation of standard protocols for the
"sake" of compatibility with X, Y, or Z. Just look at the evolution of
the Collection protocols over the last 4-5 Squeak versions to see what I
mean. I mean, if people need compatibility, why not make a compatibility
*package*? Like, in this, a subclass of the real thing that's named
Pragma and can be used if you need "compatible" pragmas.
Cheers,
- Andreas
stéphane ducasse wrote:
> andreas may be VW people got first the wrong name, but using a
> consistent one is better I think.
>
> Stef
>
> On 23 févr. 06, at 22:58, Andreas Raab wrote:
>
>> Lukas Renggli wrote:
>>> The pragmas in 3.9 are not there to tweak the code generator. After
>>> parsing they are put into the compiled method, so that the system can
>>> query tagged methods. It has absolutely nothing to do with the
>>> #pragma, except that is shared its name.
>>
>> Which is precisely the reason why I originally called them
>> "annotations" instead of pragmas.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> - Andreas
>>
>
>
>
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|