Hi

This is not about tragedy but about energy and beauty. We have always  
been influenced by the vision
of dan than Smalltalk would be so nice and simple than a single guy  
could understand it and more important
to learn from it. Now it was related to the notion that it is better  
to learn from clean code than hacks.

Now if at the end of the day you spent a lot of energy just arguing  
with people then after a while
may be you should to do something else of your evenings.

I think that SmalltalkImage is not the best move we did but as lukas  
remarked other Smalltalk
have similar solutions. Now as I said I think that the architecture  
of Squeak is too old to support
solutions that would nicely support security concerns (separate  
namespace for global.... - I'm not talking
about namespace at the language level just at the infrastructure  
level). So for us cleaning SystemDictionary
was justified if we consider it as a namespace. if you take 3.4 you  
see it more like a aggregate of behavior
and a not so cosy one.

So I'm really questioning myself to know what to do in the future.

Stef

> I don't think that's such a horrible or tragic outcome. Squeak  
> benefits greatly from Stephane's work (IMO), so it's a loss in one  
> sense if he decides not to work on it, but at the same time, if  
> he's frustrated by those who are at cross-purposes, a fork is a  
> good solution.
>
> On the one hand, Smalltalk is meant to be altered in dramatic ways,  
> on the other, people are trying to get work done. Those two  
> purposes are going to cross at times.
>
> 	===Blake===
>
>