Stefs roadmap for 3.9, time to get it nailed down

stéphane ducasse ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Thu Feb 24 08:16:51 UTC 2005


>>
>
> No, you need to say it only once. In the SqueakMap comments, for 
> starters, where chances are higher that people will read it than in 
> any posting on the mailing list.

We will fix that. adrian was far too explicit because half of it is not 
a problem (documentation;)

>> Adrian posted call for feedback long time ago.
>
> I'm beginning to get the feeling that general calls for feedback don't 
> work in this community ;)

:)

> So one issue to solve is how to get more people looking at Traits, and 
> hopefully working towards a releasable level.

Indeed
> The drawback is that this ties Traits' release schedule to OB's 
> release schedule, not?

Not really since adrian extended the normal browser to be able to 
define traits. But you will not get the hyper fancy
features of the original browser of nathanael in the default one but in 
OB.

>> 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.

> That's of course a problem that will persist as long as Traits ain't 
> "out there".

Yes we redo regularly the work.

>> 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.
>>
> Hmm... probably missed that one - do you have a pointer or at least 
> approximate time period about this discussion?
look for canUnderstand

canUnderstand: is returning true even when there is only self 
subclassResponsibility in the body and this is a problem
Because if you send a message after you get an error which is not what 
you want. And traits requirements are expressed
as self requirement... So some people shouted and they were wrong and 
that drove us crazy because big mouths were talking as usual.

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

> Heh. Well, Alan is fond of Croquet as well, I assume, but that isn't 
> going to make it land into 3.9 base ;)
>
> Concluding, Stephane - I'm committed to getting Traits into 3.9, 4.0, 
> or whatever. But not by forcing it through everyone's throat.

This was never our intention this is why EVERYTHING has been public.
Nathanael refactored the collection and stream classes this is at 
OOPSLA so this should be just research!
But this is not.

> There must be some time to be able to play with the stuff, some time 
> to build up a real world code base with Traits, to have people look at 
> kernel refactorings with Traits, etcetera.

Exactly 3000% correct. We do not that we never did and we do not want 
to be the guys that fucked up
and that 3.9 is a doomed fucked up release by the guys from berne. You 
see what I mean. Also at the conceptual
level I want to be able to use Squeak to teach newbie and this is why I 
do not want namespaces. So
your points are reasonable and we will work hard to arrive to that 
point. But now our effort can't be just ok this is just research stuff 
and this is..m,.m.m

> All the other good tools that are in the base image have had to go 
> through the same testing and acceptance process: SqueakMap, 
> Monticello, all were available and in use before they were made part 
> of the base image. Traits *must* go through the same process, it's to 
> big to just shove it in. So it's vital to get a production-level 
> version out there ASAP so people can work with it. That's usually the 
> best way to let people make up their minds.

Exact!
We never said anything else. Reread the 3.9 roadmap all is there!
We ALREADY say it.




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list