Klaus D. Witzel wrote:
> C'mon :) Isn't this the same with a) Interpreter, b) Seaside, c) 
> Compiler & NewCompiler, d) Monticello, e) Morphics, f) <put your's here>

Not sure which part you are referring to here. Whether you mean the 
number of people really understanding those systems, or whether you mean 
that the self-implementing part, or whether you mean that the usefulness 
of any of the above is intrinsically tied to an tool dependency.

> I understand and share parts of your critique, in fact Traits seems to 
> be more at the heart of "it" and lacks efficient tool support but, try 
> to make a substantial change to a) - f) or ask more than the respective 
> dozen of people to describe, in understandable terms, how these a) - f) 
> effectly work: absolutely no difference, nil, zero, zippo.
> 
> No offense intended, Andreas. But Traits is no exception the way it can 
> be interpreted from your postings.

You are of course right. If you interpret it that way, it's not correct. 
My criticism is elsewhere: I am very upset about how much harder it is 
to understand traits than any of the things you mention above. I went 
through the NewCompiler in an afternoon, Seaside took me weekend, I 
actively hacked on Monticello. In all of these cases I was able to 
navigate and learn a large and completely unknown (and sometimes not too 
pretty) code base in a very reasonable amount of time.

In the traits implementation I failed miserably, and I am not quite sure 
why. That is my criticism of traits. And it is quite possible that this 
is related to insufficient tools, but I'm sorry, if I can't understand 
how things ought to work then I won't be able to help building tools for it.

Cheers,
   - Andreas