Andreas. This is true that the Traits implementation could be done  
without traits and be more understandable.
This could be simply done by flattening those traits. The  
implementation is not that complex. At least to me the compiler looks  
more complex.
Traits are simple. Have a look at the master of Adrian.
Monticello is really complex to me I can never find what I should  
extend or call. I read MC2 and this is much simpler to my eyes.
When I program MC I copy and paste since in general I cannot find  
what I have to do (lost in ancestor working copies and the rest).

Stef

On 22 févr. 07, at 09:17, Andreas Raab wrote:

> 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
>
>