>
>
> So if we put this in then maybe someone not fully mentally integrated 
> into the "Smalltalk way" walks in, starts ripping things out all over 
> the place and before you know it we have Objective-C with a little 
> mouse at the top.
If someone wants to do this then let em, its an open source project, if 
it works then great, if not then good luck to them. Its not our job to 
be the censors as to what someone may or may not do with squeak in the 
future.
> I don't see a problem with there being a NullObject package out there 
> for people who do need it, or just want to use it in their code.  But 
> why does this need to be in the main image?
Null is in effect a language feature. Language features belong in the 
core. If a language feature is not in the core than it is not going to 
be widely usable, and it is certainly not going to be usable to help 
tidy the core.

All I am saying is that I have looked at tidying things on occasion and 
I have thought that having 'null' would be useful, but its not there and 
the option is not available.
>   You are talking about ripping things out of the core and replacing 
> it with this, but keep in mind some of the people who have worked on 
> this code.
Yes they have worked on this code, by putting it in, building it up, 
increasing the size. Pulling in the belt a few notches requires  
different skills and perhaps additional language features might help.
...
> That's not to say that what they did can never be replaced, but it 
> just takes more thought IMO then simply making a new package out there 
> that people can "opt in".
Yes it takes more thought to refactor and tidy up that it did to put it 
in in the first place, there are often more factors to be considered. 
Having a bigger armory of techniques is not a bad thing.
>
>     Just a little dig at the process that has continued to demonstrate
>     that
>     democracy doesn't seem to work in terms of pushing innovations, but
>     appears to favour the status quo
>
>
> Begging your pardon, but isn't pronouncing something you happen to 
> like as an "innovation" a bit presumptuous? :)
The use of innovations in that sentence is not referring to anything 
specific, its a general point, so I am not pronouncing anything. 
> Innovations have and do happen in Squeak.  But to get people on your 
> side you have to prove it's worth the risk.  Make an image with your 
> Null object and replace the things you think should be replaced and 
> then come back and show how it runs faster/is less code/is easier to 
> maintain/whatever and maybe people will start getting on board.
This is pitting abstract versus concrete thinking. Adding a language 
feature is an abstract concept, and provides benefits in terms of the 
abstractions available for thinking about the problem etc. Concrete 
thinking is demanding stats before the fact.
> I'm a little bit confused by all this.  Why does it need to be 3.11 
> images?  What is wrong with Damien's approach of "value add" 
> prepackaged images?
3.11 is simpy a name given to a nominated starting point upon which 
damien can build whatever he wishes. I am only talking about one final 
product, with a process for getting there, which involves having a 
number of "fix this or that" branches

Keith