Re: [Pharo-dev] Pharo 4 Beta, first impressions

[Benoit St-Jean via Pharo-dev]

--- Begin Message ---

It's not so much about the Windows look (whether it's Win98, Win 2K, Win XP, 
Win Me, Win 8, Win Whatever).  Every Windows user *expects* to have the Close, 
Maximize & Minimize buttons at the upper right of the Window.
It might look like a silly detail but try swapping the buttons of a Mac user to 
the right and wait a few seconds before he complains!  ;)
 -----------------
Benoit St-Jean
Yahoo! Messenger: bstjean
Twitter: @BenLeChialeux
Pinterest: benoitstjean
IRC: lamneth
Blogue: endormitoire.wordpress.com
"A standpoint is an intellectual horizon of radius zero".  (A. Einstein)
      From: Marcus Denker <marcus.den...@inria.fr>
 To: Benoit St-Jean <bstj...@yahoo.com>; Pharo Development List 
<pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> 
 Sent: Friday, April 3, 2015 8:28 AM
 Subject: Re: [Pharo-dev] Pharo 4 Beta, first impressions
   


On 03 Apr 2015, at 14:11, Benoit St-Jean via Pharo-dev 
<pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org> wrote:

Date: 3 Apr 2015 14:08:03 CEST
From: Benoit St-Jean <bstj...@yahoo.com>
Reply-To: Benoit St-Jean <bstj...@yahoo.com>
To: Pharo Development List <pharo-dev@lists.pharo.org>
Subject: Pharo 4 Beta, first impressions


3 quick things :
1) How can I get the Windows theme (W2K) that was available in Pharo 3 (it's no 
longer there in Pharo 4.0 Beta).  Having the close, maximize & minimize buttons 
to the left of every window is VERY annoying for Windows users!

Windows 2k is 16 years old. We can not maintain a museum of old windows looks… 
it just makes no sense (at all. At all… I don’t even think how someone can 
think that we should!).Keep in mind that nobody uses it (but you, I guess), so 
it will for sure be broken in subtle ways… 
We need to use it where it makes sense. A windows 2000 look is not one of these 
things.



2) Am I the only one annoyed by the fact that the Collection class still holds 
on to 2 class variables (one of them being an instance of Random, the other a 
mutex) for the sole purpose of accommodating the #atRandom & #atRandom: methods 
?  Even worse, the Integer class' implementation of #atRandom references the 
Collection class to use that random instance!  In other words, 
Integer>>#atRandom --> Collection>>#randomForPicking --> Random !  I've always 
been a fan of the "mind your own business" approach.  Wouldn't it make a lot 
more sense to have the Random class provide a default instance (a singleton) 
whenever other classes need such an object instead of crippling the code with 
class variables and singleton instance all over the place?


The system is very large. I think it is fundamentally wrong to assume that 
something like this (Design level things) will be magically fixed if there was 
no discussion, no issue tracker entry, no nothing.
Why do you think that this will “fix itself magically”? I would really like to 
know your thought process behind this… is there something that makes you think 
that a release process could catchthis? How?
 Marcus

  

--- End Message ---