On Sun, 08 Jan 2006 22:27:15 -0800, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de>  
wrote:

> Does anyone out there has the same feeling that I get when things get  
> added to basic? That they essentially get cast in amber, almost  
> impossible to change and *definitely* impossible to remove "because it  
> breaks X"? In many ways it's crazy to see the discussions about removing  
> orphans while at the same time nobody even notices the orphans that we  
> are creating (and could easily avoid) today.

One of the thing that fascinates me about Squeak is how it  
exemplifies--well, virtually every problem that emerges in cooperative  
development.<s>

Wouldn't it be groovy if we could make it so that Squeak kept the old  
stuff working (even if suboptimally) while not being chained to it?  
Wouldn't that be possible? It's hard for me to imagine that it's not worth  
it, given the prevalence of the issue.

Seems to me that it's possible in .NET, and I'd hate to think we were  
behind MS.<s>