On 24 Oct 2013, at 18:32, Levente Uzonyi <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, 24 Oct 2013, Philippe Marschall wrote: > >> On 22.10.13 00:08, Camillo Bruni wrote: >>> see my long explanation here >>> https://pharo.fogbugz.com/default.asp?11876#87218 >>> it looks unsuspicous until the moment you try understand such a failing >>> assertion. >> >> This isn't moving Pharo foward. This doesn't make the system any more >> flexible, adaptable, modular or malleable. This doesn't make the system any >> easier to maintain. This doesn't make the system any smaller, faster, >> scalable or secure. This doesn't make the system any easier to maintain. >> This doesn't make life easier for anybody developing Pharo or using Pharo. >> This doesn't improve Pharo in any way. >> >> This only adds code who's sole purpose is to break people's existing code. > > <rant> > It's part of the Pharo manifesto: "Not backward compatible" > </rant>
<annoyed> Please go write those kind of comments on squeak-dev, nobody from Pharo ever does this on squeak-dev, ever. </annoyed> > > Levente > >> >> If you disagree with such a way of writing tests then the right solution >> IMHO is to write a SLint rule. >> >> Cheers >> Philippe
