Hi all!

Julian Fitzell <julian at beta4.com> wrote:
> goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
> > Sometimes I really do understand why some people think Squeak is a mess,
> > especially if we can't even acknowledge the fact that we need to shapen
> > things up a bit.
> 
> I don't think it's anything like that.  Some people want rules - they 
> just want *their* rules.  I happen to think general coding standards are 
> a good thing, I just happen to disagree with half of your suggestions.

The important point with my posting was the embedded question:
	Can we and should we try to come up with a few rules for the standard
packages?

My little examples were NOT the point at all. Forget about them! I just
whipped them up to show what I am talking about.
 
> And I don't want to get involved in the discussion because I know that 
> *other people* will disagree with a different half.
>
> Most of those who don't want rules probably just realize the 
> improbability of coming to any agreement.

Ok, so in short you think it is pointless to even *try*? And how would
we ever be able to evolve Squeak with say Traits if we can't even agree
on some simple, small coding conventions *in the standard packages*?

Again - please people, come on! Can't at least some of you say "Hey, you
got a point here. Perhaps we could try to introduce a few standard
conventions in our *standard packages*."?! And then we can take the
discussion from there.

If not - then it truly disappoints me, I really thought this community
was... capable of constructive cooperation instead of petty "No, I don't
like this or that!" or "Forget it, no point..."

regards, Göran