On 17 December 2010 20:19, Chris Cunnington
<smalltalktelevision at gmail.com> wrote:
> @Dale
>
> I have to say your answer was pretty cool, as I learned some interesting
> things from it. I always like the historical perspective. The only part I'd
> comment on is this:
>
> "As a software system evolves the assumptions that were made early on are no
> longer valid,"
>
> To which I'd say: "Yea, but the code doesn't seem to go away." You'll notice
> that images never seem to get smaller.
>
> (Yes, Cuis. I see you.)
>
> I can remember several times this year when I was looking at Seaside code,
> particularly 2.6, where I was finally
> understanding things that I thought were tied were actually separate and one
> was redundant. I'm thinking particularly
> the evolution from the Builder to the Canvas. They were both there. One was
> unnecessary. And the way some projects
> evolve, the classes proliferate creating a similar kind of pollution.
> Granted, if I had a solid grip on patterns,
> I might not mind so much. But I don't think that invalidates my preference.
>
> Let me be clear: I admire Lukas and his work. I think Gofer would be great
> in Squeak. I discovered, as a result of this
> bust-up, his tutorials about PetitParser, which I'm going to spend time on.
> But I reserve the right to encounter code,
> turn away from the computer, and scream. But that's just me. The more
> explicit we can be about our preferences, the
> better I think we can all get along.
>

My 2c.

I am always wanted to have some guru who routinely checks my code,
 analyzing it, and letting me know if there any shitty stuff.
We should stay open to criticism. Otherwise we will stop learning at
some moment,
because pride turns you into stone.

> Chris
>

-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.