>
> There have been a several addons/fixes etc made by several people, but
> we haven't integrated them yet AFAIK.
> Alex did his stuff, Andreas, Daniel and more have done a lot too.
> I still think that we can pull this off - we just need to "do it". The
> problem has probably more to do with people trying to make money to pay
> the rent etc.
>
>> Now the question how it is possible that 4 smart guys cannot 
>> understand
>> the modules system to the
>> point that they can explain it. I think that this was the reason of 
>> the
>> failure of the modules.
>
> 1. No - I don't agree, Modules isn't that hard to understand. But you
> need to TRY.

Sorry Goran. I do not want to be rude in public. But we tried and
how this is possible that I cannot explain the modules system in 5 
sentences.
Or may be alex, roel, nathanael, andrew and I are just stupid. May be.


> I don't claim to understand all of it in depth but at least enough to
> grasp it. I mean, hey - essentially (cutting away some small details):
> a) a Module is a bunch of classes (globals) and you need to explicitly
> "import" the other Modules that you use in your Module. Very similar to
> import/include in all the {}-languages.
> b) The Modules are arranged in a global namespace hierarchy. Very
> similar to Java.
> c) The only thing remotely hard to understand here is IMHO DeltaModules
> and they are more or less like a ChangeSet that *only* affects one 
> given
> Module. Another way of saying this is that a DeltaModule D specifies 
> the
> difference (like a patch-file) that needs to be applied to a Module A
> version 1.0 to turn it into version 1.1.
I do not like this idea of difference but this is my problem.
>

I do not like deltamodules. Then the hierarchical view of modules is 
just about
names reservation and this is mixed with modules structure here.

> Ok, what was hard about this? Yes, I am being a bit pushy here because
> all this talk about Modules being so hard is getting on my nerves. 
> Don't
> feel offended - nothing personal.
>
> 2. Modules has NOT failed. It's in 3.3 *alpha* which means that it 
> isn't
> ready for use yet. We just need to finish it.

So I'm waiting to see it failed. Let say it like that. Have you see how 
many
changes made by the community have been harvested recently. How many 
people
are using 3.3a. Not that much.

> If you just take a look at the code Henrik wrote and which especially
> Daniel and Andreas (if I am not mistaken) has hacked a bit further on -
> you will see that a lot of it works very good.

I'm seeing that the code is bad. I'm saying that the model is complex.
because what is needed is a concept for grouping and manipulating
class definition and method definition. I discussed with daniel at ESUG 
and
he told me that now he understand the idea behind Ginsu. The model was 
small
and simple. But joseph succeeded to pissed of everybody so this is 
great.

So cool we are living in a happy world.
I looked at the code of henrik. Alex too. Believe me.


>
> regards, Gˆran
>
>
Dr. Stéphane DUCASSE (ducasse at iam.unibe.ch) 
http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~ducasse/
  "if you knew today was your last day on earth, what would you do
  different? ... especially if, by doing something different, today
  might not be your last day on earth" Calvin&Hobbes