Hi Andreas,

on Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:36:49 +0100, you wrote:
> 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 [1], and [2]) 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.

C'mon :) Isn't this the same with a) Interpreter, b) Seaside, c) Compiler  
& NewCompiler, d) Monticello, e) Morphics, f) <put your's here>

I understand and share parts of your critique, in fact Traits seems to be  
more at the heart of "it" and lacks efficient tool support but, try to  
make a substantial change to a) - f) or ask more than the respective dozen  
of people to describe, in understandable terms, how these a) - f) effectly  
work: absolutely no difference, nil, zero, zippo.

No offense intended, Andreas. But Traits is no exception the way it can be  
interpreted from your postings.

/Klaus

> 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.
>
> Cheers,
>    - Andreas
>
> [1]http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2005-August/094009.html
> [2]http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-October/110494.html
>
>