Apparently there is no value in what we are doing:
removing etoy, removing a lot of ***SHIT*** from squeak, fixing tons
of bugs (the bug archives
is full of fixed bugs and fixes problems), writing more tests,
cleaning a HUGE spaghetti mess
(preferences....). Utilities is one of this crap. And of course Author
could be made a bit better.
Of course there is no preference to avoid to warn on deprecated call!
Apparently you only do stuff right. Perfect! But we will do it our
way. Period.
May be you should put your code under GPL or something like that
we will not even thing that we should have a look at it.
What we are doing is totally useless for you. Excellent! Continue to
bark if this
helps you.
Stef
On May 4, 2009, at 11:08 PM, Keith Hodges wrote:
John M McIntosh wrote:
On 4-May-09, at 6:10 AM, Keith Hodges wrote:
I don't use pharo myself. Goodness knows why
they break things as
simple
as author initials.
Keith
Er because of the re-licensing of the squeak code base and the
discovery that using JUST
initials made the chore very difficult to determine who wrote the
code. So they enforce names now
Thats not my point my point is that they broke the
code.
The way forward is to engineer a solution, not just hack something in
that breaks what everyone has already.
One could propose a new loadable Author package that handles
everything
and publish that for everyone that cares to use it, rather than
forcing
code to break and all manner of nightmares managing two streams per
package.
since Pharo has a more business target and the
first question those
folks ask, what's the license
and code ownership like?
I use Squeak for Business, and I will continue to do so.
The whole
approach behind pharo is flawed because it is dedicated to making more
work for me the coder of stuff that is for all. This is one instance
where I feel entirely justified in saying I told you so.
Keith
_______________________________________________
Magritte, Pier and Related Tools ...
https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/smallwiki