> Hi Stef, > >> Now people hear me well: you are ready to hear well. Lower the music > > Beside the fact that I like listening to loud music I really lowered it ;) > But even with silence in the room your response told me nothing new regarding > the topic discussed.
Then read it again :) Because it is really serious and I will just repeat the same. Pharo should be welcoming. I hate the kind of teaching: “you had a lot of barriers to get there and you succeeded, of course 95% of the classrooms died in the process and prefered JS" > It is not a discussion about "who has the vision" or "who want to get stuck" > I think we all share the SAME VISION to move forward with a fresh dynamic > programming environment and are not afraid if we move away from our original > roots. > Otherwise we would'nt be on this list or do even radical changes. I do not know. So far you are the first ones that ask interesting questions :). To me the other complaints were more like arguments against changes. > But still the simple question left to be anwered here: what will this change > of reducing the > class template in the default browser give us? What problem did it really > solve? shorter, nicer, simpler class definition :) > The answer given so far is that it may be problematic when teaching because > you want to > introduce to language features step by step. But you said yourself in your > own post > that > > <quote> > It is BORING to have to say to kids: > - do not care of classvar > - do not care of pooldictionaries > </quote> > > So my question: if you are bored of the "complexity" of BOTH (!) > - why do we hide pools now > - and leave class variables still left in the template? Because classVar and more central I would remove them too and I REALLY hope we will. I hate to see all these empty strings all the time. In the template why not but why in the class definition? > I really do not understand because with the change it now looks in > Pharo3.0 Latest update: #30732 like this: > > Object subclass: #Foo > instanceVariableNames: '' > classVariableNames: '' > category: ‘Bar' Because we did not remove them yet but I would love that too. And because classVar are more central that Pool. > So why do we keep class vars then? According to your mail we would have to > remove them too. Yes and instance variables too :) Don’t faint but why do we need an empty list of instance variables for classes that do not define instance variables? Seriously: lack of good default value? lack of understanding what is optional? To me a class is a name superclass package then optional and in any order instance variables, class var and to make happy everybody pool > Additionally this change violates the intention of a template (which one > usually just has to fill out) > and one now has to remember the original full keyword and have to type it in > again - which is IMHO > really awkward and stupid. Yes I was talking about the actual class definition not the template > > So with all respect: I still can not see the introduction of the reduced > template as a step forward > or an improvement. > > Music is still lowered and ears are all open... > > Thx > T. >
