Plus to a little of more documentation, I think one of the problems is not an inconsistent base class, is some packages we install and change this base. This is some powerfull of squeak,but dangerous too.if a package change some,it must warning, and/or launch the test to check all still ok at least.

For example,as far as i remember, FFI must be one of the things you must install before Installer, because the last brokes something for FFI.

We, as developers and/or "core" collaborators,must have always in mind,one of the best tools squeak has, SUnit, and use it, going always to green. I know some people do a great job on this not so far.

I would like to ask, something too,to know if i'm wrong.universes was created to have a collection of packages thath works with a specific version, and solve dependencies.but,don't you think,we abuse of it?

As my example with FFI, if this doesn't install,then something is going wrong. Or install postgress (or glorp,i dont remember)an a primitive fails on tests

On squeakmap times, the package warning you about is not release to this squeak version,or not as stable to install.if you install it, something can go wrong.i like this idea,knowing you can install a package without fear. Implement dependencies to SM could be a solution?

As always, only ideas trying to get a better squeak every time.



Enviado usando Real Mail de Vodafone.

-----Original Message-----

From: "Casimiro de Almeida Barreto" <casimiro.barreto at gmail.com>
Sent: Sun, 08 Feb 2009 00:21:14 -0200
To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list" <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Received: 08-Feb-2009 03:21:40 +0100
Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Re: Winds of change

Aidan Gauland escreveu:
> Giuseppe Luigi Punzi <glpunzi <at> lordzealon.com> writes:
>   
>> We have elections soon.
>>
>> I'ts time to think about the project. What we search? What new 
>> developers search?
>>     
>
> For me, the biggest problem with Sqeuak at the moment is its lack of class and
> method comments (but not every method needs an overview comment).  I would like
> to say to all developers of the uncommented system classes: "Will you please go
> back and comment, all the methods and classes you wrote, but failed to
> document!"  And I know I'm not the only one who feels this way.  Hold back on
> new features for just a minute, and give what we already have a quick polish. 
> I've wasted many hours trying to puzzle out how to use complex yet undocumented
> methods (some weren't even documented on the Squeak Swiki).  The basic
> collection classes, and the core system classes are well commented.
>
>  -Aidan
>
> P.S No hard feelings, just some frustration.  Sqeuak is a great development
> system, and seems to keep getting better.
>
>
>
>   
+1

I would also suggest some things:

    * Definition of a set that can be considered as foundation classes.
    * Within this set, standardization of docs and also external
      documentation.
    * Within this set, standardization of style.
    * Within this set, compatibility between all the classes (meaning,
      no hang-ups during install, no hang-ups during execution due to
      cross effects, etc).
    * When a new class is considered suitable to be included inside the
      "foundation classes" set, it must comply with above requirements.
    * A police for deprecation that avoids conflicts with new classes.

I agree: Squeak is a great development system that is getting better all
the time. Besides have a finest community supporting it.

Best regards,

CdAB