"Andreas Raab" andreas.raab@gmx.de wrote:
And I strongly urge people to think about this - why is the image so poorly commented? Because SqC took exactly this approach - "better to getthe stuff in, who cares, we can write comments later".
Err ... actually this is wrong. Really, we never intended to "write comments later".
True. You probably didn't think like I wrote it. I take that back! And you probably had your reasons - you didn't intend to go open source etc, it was your own "box" and it was of course all up to you how you worked etc. I didn't imply any blaim. :-)
But nevertheless the net effect is the same unfortunately - and I don't think we should go on doing the same mistake. If anyone disagrees with this I am all ears, please tell me why it would be good to insert uncommented code into Squeak. And, no - again I am of course not talking about setters/getters.
We were no vendor just a bunch of people willing to share their (unfinished) tools with the rest of the world. If you expect a fully documented system then find a vendor. That's what they do.
First if all - I don't expect a "fully documented system". But I do want Squeak to improve in this respect because it just isn't good. And we all know that.
But again, I expressed myself wrongly.
Sorry.
regards, Göran