Hi Stef, > On Sep 21, 2015, at 2:53 PM, stepharo <[email protected]> wrote: > > I think that having metadata (style) language and data (source code) mixed > together is a bad idea. > I never like the ]lang[ tag because it is a huge hack. It does not even exist > in the Smalltalk syntax!!! > We save code that the parser cannot parse. What we fun idea. > So people are bashing for backward compatibility and we remove a bad way to > encode > metadata then suddenly it looks like we were doing something bad.
It seems to me you are confusing functionality and implementation. Just because you don't like the implementation is no reason to lose the functionality. No implementation is perfect, so this path leads to a denuded system. The onus is on the community to reimplement things well, not throw things away just because the implementation is problematic. If I had chosen to implement Cog with a much nicer substrate then neither Squeak, nor Pharo nor Newspeak would have been able to benefit. Instead I was pragmatic and made sure Cig supported the existing requirements, not done platonic ideal. I wish you would adopt as a principle that functionality be retained as you are cleaning up Pharo. Instead I see useful fictional its discarded because if scruples and I find it "unpleasant". _,,,^..^,,,_ (phone) > > Stef >
