>
>
> These goals are, imho, incompatible between them.  If we want to see 
> the
> next shift, let's forget about compatibility, stability, documentacion,
> etc.  On the other side, if we want to see a "solid" smalltalk to
> create "standard" business applications, let's forget about eToys, 
> Croquet,
> etc.
I do not believe in this separation. As a person experimenting with new 
object model
I need (just ask nathanael face to face his point of view) a non buggy 
parser, a good AST, a customisable compiler....Should I continue?

So there is no opposition of principle. I think that after any 
expansion phase a consolidation pahse is required. Even if as Andreas 
pointed out we may have tocuhed the limits of traditional
object models. Still spaghetti code is spaghetti code.

> I have not a clear position on it but if I'm force to choose I'll 
> choose to
> work in the next paradigm shift. Meanwhile we can use another 
> Smalltalk to
> create "standard" applications.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Diego Gomez Deck
>
>
>
>
>
>
Prof. 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