Agreed. One shoud avoid writing code that uses "ActiveWorld" or even "Project current world" for that matter. It can only be a "last choice". Still, having it as a handy mechanism at the programmer's disposal, well, I find that quite valuable.

Comparing "World" against "ActiveWorld", I would say that "World"-use needs more attention right now. :)

Best,
Marcel 
Am 14.11.2017 20:37:12 schrieb Chris Muller <ma.chris.m at gmail.com>:
On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 12:37 PM, Marcel Taeumel wrote:
> The dynamically-scoped "ActiveWorld", which is technically not quite
> comparable with the global "World", is in line with ActiveEvent and
> ActiveHand. One would have to remove all three concepts.

Okay, and just to be clear, I'm not really pushing for any removals or
non-removals as much as just trying to understand our policy toward
globals.

I see Dynamic vars as similar to globals in terms of being a
read/write free-for-all, not scoped by the code structure, but by
runtime conditions as well, which imposes an even greater cognitive
load on the reader than a simple global. I know they have their
use-case, but besides that, I do hope we'll steer clear of introducing
any more DynamicVars into the base code.

Best,
Chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20171114/fb10884f/attachment.html>