[From the soapbox:] election details *PLEASE READ*
andreas.raab at gmx.de
Thu Feb 22 07:36:49 UTC 2007
Adrian Lienhard wrote:
> Of course the tools are not perfect. Instead of helping to improve the
> situation people tend to complain. Unfortunately this will not bring us
> forward. But hey, its not that important, is it?
Isn't it more like: To use traits you need tools, to write tools you
need to understand traits, and to understand traits you need to use them?
I've been poking around in the traits implementation myself (fairly well
documented in , and ) and although I have a very good
understanding about the metaclass relationships in Squeak < 3.9 I found
the traits implementation basically impenetrable. If I look at who
implements a method and get ten implementors thrown at me where there
used to be one or two, it's just not helpful. I stopped digging into it
for that reason - the traits class kernel has become completely
inaccessible to me.
I'm starting to think that implementing traits using traits may have
been a mistake for that very reason. Maybe this should have done as a
second step or so. But the way the situation is I think there may only
be half a dozen people in the world who have any idea of how that traits
kernel works. The rest is doomed to use tools that are simply not up to
the job and have basically no chance to really get into it.
More information about the Squeak-dev