On Jan 31, 2014, at 2:03 PM, Andreas Wacknitz <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Am 31.01.2014 um 14:40 schrieb Johan Fabry <[email protected]>: > >> Hi Torsten, >> >> I think it is a design decision / tradeoff, and therefore there is no >> fundamentally "right way" to do it. For me, it is the same case as the uses: >> message for Traits. It's not in the template by default because it is used >> very infrequently. So for language simplicity it should not be there. For >> me, simplicity is one of the core points of Smalltalk so this is why I feel >> strongly about it. > > I don’t see how this change make Smalltalk (the language) simpler. For me > this change looks more like an obfuscation than a simplification. It's simpler because very infrequently used things are not immediately exposed. Again this is a matter of where the design tradeoff is made. If it would be used a lot it would indeed be obfuscation. >> When I say "very infrequently", this is of course a fuzzy metric, I know. >> And I understand that you do not agree with this design decision. >> >> But on the other hand, I don't think that it is too hard to remember where >> to add the pooldictionaries: line if you need it, and the old message with >> this line still works, so all old examples still work. > > How should newcomers know how to enter pool dictionaries? I rarely use pool > dictionaries and if I will need it I surely have forgotten about > this change and expect irritation and frustration. I understand that when you want to use it and it is not there there is a cost. Especially if you have forgotten how the message goes. BUT it is a message send, just like any other in Smalltalk. Open a method finder and look for methods with pooldictionaries in there. In 15 seconds you find it. I think that is an acceptable period of time of irritation and frustration. ---> Save our in-boxes! http://emailcharter.org <--- Johan Fabry - http://pleiad.cl/~jfabry PLEIAD lab - Computer Science Department (DCC) - University of Chile
