Hi goran and diego

I think that the best thing that you can do for the community and us is 
to give a try.
Develop two classes with traits, think about it and tell us.

What I can tell you is that VW people are interested into the model 
(but they have much
more ballast than we have). I'm for the evolution of smalltalk for the 
better and the simpler (no direct IV anymore, multiple args list.


Our personal plans here at Berne is that we will try to Squeak and 
other the possibility to
evolve with us until the point (may be we will never reach it) where we 
will create a new language. We do not want to be bound with the past 
and compatibility issues. But only if this is
for something better. For me { is not enough and does not worth 
incompatibility.

Stef



On Friday, February 14, 2003, at 03:25 PM, diegogomezdeck at consultar.com 
wrote:

> Hi Göran and list,
>
>> Issue 2
>> ========
>>
>> Issue 2 is somewhat peripherally connected to the above. Traits is
>> standing outside our pretty little Smalltalk-80 descendant house and 
>> is
>> knocking on the door. What does this mean? If Traits was a package -
>> where should we put it? In core? Ok, that would essentially mean that
>> Squeak is taking a step away from Smalltalk. Squeak simply isn't a
>> "Smalltalk-80 clone" anymore. And the argument that Traits is optional
>> to use doesn't hold - people *will* use it and that will change *a
>> lot*.
>>
>> Personally I do think it could be placed in core. It seems to be such
>> an elegant extension solving a lot of problems. But some people
>> probably wants Squeak to stay as a "Smalltalk clone" and be as
>> compatible with other Smalltalks as possible. Well, I am not one of
>> them - but it will be interesting to see the discussion unfold.
>>
>> What if we put Traits in "Extra" then? Sure, that is a compromise that
>> may work. But then we will loose a lot of the real good use of Traits 
>> -
>> to untangle our core packages like for example Collections or Morphic.
>> Because we can't have packages in core depending on packages outside 
>> of
>> core. So that doesn't really sound like an interesting option.
>>
>> So, again - a very interesting challenge I think. Are we going into 
>> the
>> future or are we staying in the eighties? :-) Can we do both?
>
> I feel we'll be not able to make the next step.
>
> Don't misunderstand me. I *really* want to see (and to be part on) the 
> next
> step! but "We have too much ballast in our balloon".
>
> Every time somebody suggest a change we hear a lot of voices saying 
> "Don't
> please! Compatibility!".
>
> Traits is a good example. I'm not sure that Traits is the way to go, 
> but
> I'm sure we have to try! But this list is more motivated in 
> un-important
> discussions (like native widgets, access to relational databases,
> deployment as executables, etc).
>
> The are a lot of other things to try (examples: remove of direct 
> access of
> variables, more metaprogramming facilities, etc, etc, etc).
>
> Solution? I haven't one. I'm only describing my feeling with Squeak 
> since
> SqC had leaved Disney.
>
>> Well, fire away. But let's keep it civil. ;-)
>>
>> regards, Göran
>
> c u,
>
> 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