<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 5/6/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Wolfgang Helbig</b> <<a href="mailto:helbig@lehre.ba-stuttgart.de">helbig@lehre.ba-stuttgart.de</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>This in turn is the only technique I know of that saves you from "off by one"<br>errors in particular and "bugs" in general.<br><br>So the changes *are* important.</blockquote><div><br>For you and those who share your POV. Others who have been coding in Smalltalk for over 30 years apparently have a different POV since it is quite possible to adapt Squeak to your POV and they haven't done so. Personally in over 20 years of Smalltalk coding, I've rarely seen any "off by one" errors. You don't have to move too far up the food chain away from machine language for that to happen.
<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">And hard to implement in Smalltalk.<br><br>Or, viewed as biological species, Squeak and even Smalltalk-80 evolved to a
<br>level where they lost the flexibility to meet the "new" challenge of switching<br>from the dark art of medieval metaphors to the scientific technique of logical<br>reasoning.</blockquote><div><br>Squeak is very much capable of adapting to the needs you describe above. Whether or not the cost/benefit tradeoffs make sense only you can determine. A lot of work can be eliminated if you don't
care about any of the existing tools. When Spoon arrives it will be much easier to do what would have to be done by hand or by judicious Monticello scripting. Squeak is so flexible that you could even have both solutions existing within the same image using some type of isolated project or island approach. The nicest thing is that you don't have to take anyone else's word for it as you've got all the source code you need to nudge Squeak's evolution in whatever direction you want. It might be good to be mindful that complex species don't evolve by optimizing their chemical bonding, let alone the underlying quantum chemical processes. Nature it appears, agrees with Ralph - program at a high level!
<br><br>Cheers,<br><br>Laurence<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">By the way, at<br> <a href="http://people.squeakfoundation.org/article/58.html">
http://people.squeakfoundation.org/article/58.html</a><br>I posted another "challenge". It is quite harmless. :-)<br><br>Greetings,<br>Wolfgang<br><br>--<br>Weniger, aber besser.<br><br><br></blockquote></div><br>