On Thu, 18 Sep 2003, ducasse wrote:

> > Personally, I *like* the Camp Smalltalk spirit which is to try to
> > provide
> > common things (tools, kits, etc.) for all dialects and
> > implementations. To
> > build de facto standards. SUnit being a shining example.
>
> Me too. So what is the point.

The point, the real point, was "buried" in the section you snipped. Let me
be blunt: Your "sad" remarks went well over into the completley rude. The
generality of them meant they struck most everyone. Please clean up your
remarks with the same passion that you seek to clean up code.

Plus, I'll note that this very long disucussion wasn't pointless or futile
and led to an exploration of the design space that generated genuinely
novel designs.

My point about the Camp Smalltalk spirit is that trying to work *with* the
larger smalltalk community has value. We are not the source of all
innovation nor of all ugly innovation. To the degree that we *can* stay
ANSI, I think many are served, so I don't think that's irrelevant.

> We should stay and watch vendors not been
> able to move or introduce
> ugly namespace or pragmas and follow...really cool.

Oh piffle. Really, grow up. I never suggested the REMOTE like and have
railed agaist VW like namespaces in the past. The point being not all
change is good, and not all change happens here. So your supposed "stodgy
Smalltalkers" are, largely, a myth. Of course you think your changes are
good and simple and so easy that we should all roll over to your wisdom.
How dare we *challenge* and *debate* your *improvements*?! How dare we
stop progress! How dare we prevent Squeak from being all that you can make
it to be?

Plus, there's always Slate and SmallScript and...there's plenty of *good*
innovation out there, often because they *do* toss even the legacy code
Squeak has.

> I think that we should stop thinking that this new/initialize pattern
> will break the
> dialect independence of the code.

Personally, if I'm to stop thinking something, I prefer to be persuaded by
argument, not commanded. (If incompatibility is a problem, then MORE
incompatibility isn't necessarily *neutral*. But I'm *not* arguing for or
against this addition. I'm arguing against tarring the rest of us as
unclean luddites.)

(Not that I actually CARE much about this issue. I see points on either
side. I'm somewhat familar with the ObjC similar debate. I personally
would prefer, as Richard does, a better, perhaps bigger solution.)

> Come on open your eyes. There are
> much more incompatibility
> between the dialects even if they would all pass the ANSI tests.

I'm not going to debate this point. MY POINT is that I would prefer if you
(and Andreas) didn't make these gratuitous and nasty remarks about the
rest of us. And the general point that "appeal to mass acceptance" is
generally bogus, even in its "make it easier for newbies" guise.

And after all, all anyone has done is *argue* with you and *given you
feedback*, not tried to take your Badge of Squeaky Cleaning Power away.

Now, bring on that Java (C#? no, XML!!!) Syntax!

Cheers,
Bijan "The SchoolYard Taunting, I-sentencing Fiend" Parsia.

P.S. NO!!! I've been INFECTED with the Richard RAISED VOICE by caps
INFLECTION pattern! But only a *little*.
P.P.S. And this is the last I hope to say about this.
P.P.P.S. I was going to say that this was the last I *was* going to say
about this, but, well, who would believe that? A promise you break is sad,
but a promise that no one REMOTELY beleives you will keep is just silly!
P.P.P.P.S. Er..so is this, actually. But I *could not* resist.