On 8 May 2015 at 19:31, Ben Coman <b...@openinworld.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, May 9, 2015 at 1:22 AM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.mira...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 9:21 AM, Alain Rastoul <alf.mmm....@gmail.com> >> wrote >>> >>> >>> The first thing I did when I tried Stef's example in Squeak was trying >>> to move the window (it was >>> a bit overlapped by my workspace) but I couldn't. >>> >>> If we do >>> [ | m | >>> [ m := BorderedMorph new borderColor: (Color yellow) . >>> m position: 0@0. >>> m openInWorld . >>> 1 to: 500 do: [ :i | m position: i@i . >>> 1 milliSeconds asDelay wait ] >>> ] ensure: [ m delete ] . >>> ] value >>> we see nothing. >>> if we replace value by fork, we can see a morph moving , because of the >>> way Morphic world runs >>> you know that of course, it's just that this example does not sound nice >>> to me too. >>> >>> Wouldn't it be better to execute do-it (s) systematically in another >>> process ? >>> >> >> I find this faintly absurd. This is, in the English phrase, the tail >> wagging the dog. You don;t know how many issues executing doits in their >> own process will cause (it could break Monticello package update for >> example, when running package postscripts, it could prevent doits doing >> simple things, for example) all for want of the transcript updating >> itself. So instead of fixing the problem we're considering introducing >> huge unknowns in a core piece of the system? I think that's a little mad. >> >> > ahh yes. Maybe we're not ready to be that adventurous yet. > cheers -ben > > Unlike other software environments, smalltalk(s) allow you to change virtually anything in the system. And i found this to be really great thing.. and was happy until the moment i realized that the real thing, that prevents changes is not the software but people who opposing the changes :)
-- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
