>> Sorry guys, I'm fed up. So I give up. Do what you want.
>
> Ah, so the deal is "either do what Stephane proposes or I'll walk 
> away"? I seriously think that this is not very productive.

Because sending all the time email is productive? Do you think that 
people working have a time to read all that and
do something after.

So I do not have the time to argue again and again and again.  I do not 
have the time to read all the emails
people are found to write.  If squeakers do not want traits what can I 
say.  Adrian worked hard in his master to reimplement ***everything*** 
from scratch with nathanael.  Adrian is the guy behind SqueakSource and 
the seaside web site and he has a company selling seaside applications. 
So his code is quite excellent, but now if people don't give a shit
of what we are doing, we will do something else or just keep it for 
himself.

Have you checked recently the posts of marcus? This indicates a lot to 
me.

> People are asking for information here. And that's their good right.

Martin was not asking for information, he was saying that basically we 
are researchers and that what we are proposing
is idiot or has no value and I do not want to argue with people at this 
level. Sorry!

> Now, if you could please point me to the latest SqueakMap loadable 
> version of Traits that people can evaluate as "this is what we propose 
> to land into Squeak 3.9", we'd have a basis for discussion. But the 
> latest version is a beta version, and the latest large comment in 
> SqueakMap on Traits, I quote:
>
> "Limitations
> -----------
> - There are still many features missing that are absolutely essential 
> for getting the real "traits experience", but these are mainly related 
> to the UI and IDE. For example:
>   - There are no virtual categories that present the conflicts and 
> glue methods of a composite class/trait.
>   - There is no automatic computation of requirements
>   - There is no information that shows which traits/classes provide or 
> require the currently selected methods
>   - There is no support for turning classes into trait
>   - etc.
>
> - The current UI is just a "minimal placeholder" that allows one to 
> start using/playing with traits. However, many improvements are still 
> missing.
> - There are known bugs in OmniBrowser (which still is in alpha).
> - The OmniBrowser updates very slowly.
>
> - No documentation apart from the papers yet."
>
> doesn't exactly invite people to start testing it. And it certainly 
> get's no-one yelling "yes - that's what I want in Squeak 3.9!".

You mix everything.  We always said that we would commit to produce 
high quality code and environment and if this would not  be ready we 
will not push it. Should I re-say again and again and again.
Traits are working fully working with tests. Now the UI is not at the 
level we would like it to be. But now the point
is that we could not work further since we were waiting for new 
versions of OmniBrowser.
So you can see that my proposal for 3.9 is quite coherent.

> If you don't want to sell, please don't be surprised that no-one buys 
> your product.

Come on, this is not because recently you show up that we were not 
working before and paying attention
to squeak and related. Since the beginning we always payed attention 
about what we have been doing. everything
is public.

> So, to get this topic back into something positive instead of whining 
> around, let me put forward a couple of simple questions:
>
> - Is the latest version of Traits on SqueakMap as limited as the above 
> thing says?
> - If no, could you please update the comments?
> - If yes, what is needed to remove the limitations? How can people 
> that are interested in getting Traits to an evaluable level cooperate?

I will adrian and nathanael reply.

The source is available on SqueakMap since day one. And everybody has 
always been welcomed. Adrian posted
call for feedback long time ago. Look into the archive.  Adrian 
interfaced it with Monticello and the new version of OB
because the class browser code is so bad. He boostrapped the kernel but 
each time a new release of squeak is coming and something change then 
he has to check again if the changes we had to do on the kernel have to 
be redone.

We produced the SystemChangeNotifier so that traits can be nicely 
introduced.
Nathanael cleaned the classOrganization so that traits can be 
introduced easily.
We pushed omnibrowser because this is the only way that we can get a 
new browser for traits.
We proposed to give a real definition to canUnderstand in presence of 
abstract method but people having nothing
to do with squeak started to shout.

Now nathanael has been developing a better algorithm for the UI but 
again as I said if squeakers do not want that
I'm sure some people will like it...

Apparently alan is found of traits so there is some hope.

Stef