+1 on this. A freezed system is a system that begins it's decay. We saw that
in nature also in the industry. That by no means imply that the system has
to evolve without discern.

	Cheers,

Sebastian Sastre

> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org 
> [mailto:squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] En 
> nombre de Ramon Leon
> Enviado el: Lunes, 03 de Septiembre de 2007 14:33
> Para: 'Randal L. Schwartz'
> CC: 'The general-purpose Squeak developers list'
> Asunto: RE: Getting double semi as sequencer harvested.
> 
> > > Are you saying you don't ever want to see the Smalltalk language 
> > > grow beyond its current state?
> > 
> > Yes.
> > 
> > Randal L. Schwartz
> 
> That begs the question of why, since not even it's creator 
> thinks the language is perfect.  On this very subject, Alan 
> himself said...
> 
> >> It's not a question of functionality, but of simple readability and
> writeability. 
> >> This idea has come up a number of times in the past, and 
> it is a very 
> >> reasonable one
> 
> And concluded with...
> 
> > Since Squeak is a completely open Smalltalk, and intended to be 
> > extended in major as well as minor ways, there is no reason 
> whatsoever 
> > to prevent these ideas and more to be added (and I wish that people 
> > would take it upon themselves to extend the language).
> >
> > Cheers, Alan
> 
> Smalltalk is a beautiful language, but it isn't perfect, and 
> it should certainly continue to evolve beyond its current 
> state.  To want to freeze the language at a particular point 
> in time and call it complete doesn't seem to me to serve the 
> spirit of Smalltalk.
> 
> Ramon Leon
> http://onsmalltalk.com
> 
>