Andreas Raab wrote:
> Paul D. Fernhout wrote:
>> So, for the 21st century, Squeak gets underscore *wrong*.
>>   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ASCII
>>
>> And for a dozen years. Every knows it is wrong. There was even a recent
>> discussion on it. It still can't be fixed!
> 
> Sure it can. Croquet fixed it.

That's exactly my point. :-) Why only Croquet (or some other images)? And
how does that help the average Squeaker tracking the main distribution?
Something is broken here. Endless repetition of core work. Lost code.
Unexpected gotchas. Unpleasant surprises for newbies. A core syntax leaving
most of the community with trouble communicating by common standards (email,
IRC, Web pages). In short, this is another example of a decade-long failure
of defining modularity and taming complexity and tuning defaults to the
novice and accommodating worldwide common standards as defaults -- even if
Squeak can do so much more almost instantly in the hands of an expert. Now
Squeak has many other amazing *successes*, and they are *amazing* successes
(like Croquet or Seaside or eToys or Sophie or Scratch, etc.) -- but taming
complexity for the average newbie (or even experienced Squeaker) is not one
of them.

And I don't think those successes are mutually exclusive of taming
complexity. In fact, I think they are all the more startling and heroic for
the untamed complexity they have overcome. But everybody is not as hard
working or motivated.

Should not the whole point of something like Squeak be to make us lazy
people more productive (whether lazy in terms of learning key combinations,
or lazy in terms of not wanting to wade through a thousand classes to find
the code we just wrote, or lazy in terms of not wanting to debug stripped
and restripped images endlessly to see what got stripped accidentally or
what is not needed)? Why can't Squeak also be for us lazy people who are
used to how the rest of the world does things, instead of sending us off to
Python or Ruby or wherever? :-)

--Paul Fernhout