On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 8:46 AM, Peter William Lount <peter at smalltalk.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Ah, ok. Then you are aiming for the elimination of much of the existing
> Smalltalk process/thread semantics. That's what I am afraid of.

Well, read some of the huge body of literature about why this is a
better way to go.  The source of fear is often ignorance.

> Jason Johnson: Here you just seem to be going off on a tangent without even
> knowing
> what solution he had in mind.  Wonderfully productive way to argue.
>
> No need to get snarky Jason. It is a fine way to get across my points. You
> obviously read something into it that wasn't intended. If you don't like my
> writing style don't answer the posts, but there isn't any need to criticize
> me for it Sir Jason.

It is just frustrating when you always (though, granted, I've only
seen you do it once in this thread) complain about how others disagree
with you, and in this case completely build up something that no on
actually said and then point out how ridiculous it is.  We either have
discussions in good faith or we don't.

> Heck if you have a simple process concurrency model that you'll be sending
> our way then it should be easy to describe it fully and in detail, don't you
> think?

Indeed.  That's why there is such a body of information about better
concurrency models on the web.  And that's why I asked why Andreas
would need to explain this yet again.

> You're planning on fundamental changes to smalltalk/squeak and I think it's
> very reasonable for a squeak user to ask what those changes are going to be
> and how they will work and how they will impact existing Smalltalk programs
> that make use of concurrency. Isn't that fair?

It might be if that was actually what I was planning.  Obviously I
would be creating my own fork or entirely new implementation.  Some of
the ideas I have (not related to concurrency) would first be
prototyped in Squeak and made available to everyone (but don't wait
for it.  Unless I win a lottery or two, I'm years away from doing much
with this).