Traits got in.

On 10/4/07, Ramon Leon <ramon.leon at allresnet.com> wrote:
> > I have a question:  What is stopping you from using them
> > right now today?  Most of what you write is for private use,
> > no?  If so you can use namespaces until your hearts content.
> > You could even make scripts to change Magritte and co to
> > switch to the namespaces when loaded into your image, so that
> > you don't have to type the prefixes anymore.
> >
> > Why do you need this to be in the default image to use it for
> > private code?
> >
>
> The same thing that stop me from wanting to over customize any environment,
> it makes all your code non standard, harder to share, harder to blog about,
> setting up new images becomes more work, all because no one wants to install
> something like Namespaces to just try it out.
>
> Namespaces belong in the core, not as an add on package.  Why? For the same
> reason objects belong in the core and not as an add on package, look at
> Scheme's situation with objects, add on packages just get you *many*
> incompatible implementations of something where everyone argues endlessly
> about which to use.
>
> It's shameful to be forced to manually prefix our class names in what
> *professes* the be the ultimate object oriented language because every time
> the issue comes up people come out of the wood works to filibuster every
> attempt at a solution.
>
> I'm behind Gorans proposal because it's the smallest change possible that
> seems to make just a tiny bit of progress on an otherwise insurmountable
> mountain of an issue.  Every other proposal is a pie in the sky fantasy not
> on technical merit, but on the social reality of this community.  Gorans
> proposal is the only one that recognizes the *reality* that a big change
> just isn't going to happen, no matter how technically brilliant it might be.
>
> Ramon Leon
> http://onsmalltalk.com
>
>
>