Hi Paul,

on Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:44:38 +0100, you wrote:

> To me, that example just shows again everything wrong with the Squeak
> development process and why it is so frustrating to deal with it -- an
> undocumented decompiled hack stands in for "free"-ly-licensed modular  
> robust software

Interesting. To what do you compare, what's the "free"-ly-licensed modular  
robust software?

/Klaus

> -- and eclipses the possibility of something better. :-)
> Squeak's great success is its own worst enemy in that respect. :-)
>
> Other comments by me on Smalltalk on the JVM here:
>   http://www.mail-archive.com/help-smalltalk@gnu.org/msg00796.html
>   http://www.mail-archive.com/help-smalltalk@gnu.org/msg00803.html
> (although now I am leaning to Scala as an intermediate language above the
> JVM instead of Kawa).
>
> --Paul Fernhout
>
> Klaus D. Witzel wrote:
>> It *is* running on that VM, even has source code,
>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2007-July/118649.html
>
>