<div dir="ltr">Sorry about the slow reply. I assumed the best intentions (hence the smiley face) but wanted to make sure folks knew there was more than one contributor (we have a whole list.)<div><br></div><div style>As for your "Fermi barrier of complexity" well. I don't know exactly how you intended this metaphor.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>We can look at some of the more obvious numbers (number of classes, number of methods per class, etc) and compare/contrast with other dialects, but I think I can safely say that we're not doing too bad so far. Experience thus far has shown that most things port to Cuis pretty cleanly, though the UI usually has to be rewritten, and often convenience methods need to be brought over, etc. While there are some features that we've (temporarily) yanked because we wanted to get rid of crufty code and/or code that doesn't grok a zoomable UI, Cuis is otherwise a very reliable and consistent system with people who will often supply support just for good sport.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>More importantly, I think, is that Cuis folks want to be a part of the Squeak community. We're a *distribution*.</div><div style><br></div><div style>Anyhoo, I figured I'd look at some numbers here. Someone should correct my incantations here, because these numbers are just too good to believe! I must be doing something wrong.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>So I'm tallying classes and traits in Squeak and Pharo with:</div><div style><br></div><div style>Smalltalk allClassesAndTraits size</div><div style><br></div><div style>...and in Cuis, since we don't have Traits, with:</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Smalltalk allClasses size</div><div style><br></div><div style>I realize that Traits aren't exactly classes, and that this is overall a relatively weak single metric for complexity, but just to show the difference in magnitude, please bear with me. FWIW, Pharo, which uses Traits extensively, only has 85 of them AFAICT, so they shouldn't skew the numbers too much.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>Squeak 4.4: 2148</div><div style>Pharo 2.0: 3301</div><div style>Cuis 4.1: 655</div><div style><br></div><div style>I think just from that it's easy to see the signal:noise ratio in Cuis, but of course there's plenty of room for a deeper study and more metrics (cyclomatic complexity, etcetera.) One useful insight might be: Squeak's core should be able to get as small or nearly as small as Cuis is now (at *least.*) I think this is good news all around.</div>
</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Casimiro de Almeida Barreto <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:casimiro.barreto@gmail.com" target="_blank">casimiro.barreto@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On 20-05-2013 03:34, Casey Ransberger wrote:<br>
>> After the schism,<br>
>> at least two other versions of "baby squeaks" appeared. One is dealt by<br>
>> a single developer. I hope him the best luck in the world.<br>
> Cuis is supported by a very small community of deeply passionate people, not a single developer. Saying that is like saying that Squeak was dealt exclusively by Andreas Raab when he had the most commits.<br>
><br>
> In other words: what am I, chopped liver? :)<br>
><br>
><br>
</div>Reading it again, I noticed that the English translation does not map<br>
exactly on the Brazilian Portuguese idea it should transmit. Sounds like<br>
I meant some kind of irony. That's not the case. Regarding Cuis its idea<br>
(which I enjoy) I really hope Cuis community the best luck in world (as<br>
in "espero que os caras se deêm bem"). My concern is that the community<br>
is small and at some point will need some energy to break through the<br>
"Fermi barrier of complexity".<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
CdAB<br>
<br>
</font></span><br><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Casey Ransberger
</div>