On Fri, 31 Dec 2010, Igor Stasenko wrote:
ahahaa.. you guys are killing me..
You are taking things too serious.
Yeah.. i would be gladly hear from Levente, what is 'the proper
deprecation policy'.
But since nobody described it, we are doomed to use one, invented before :)
I described my ideas here, so I won't repeat it. But I can tell you that
removing a method which wasn't deprecated at all is _not_ a proper
deprecation policy.
Nothing is perfect, but its not the reason to fight.
There's no fight.
Levente
On 31 December 2010 15:34, Nicolas Cellier
<[email protected]> wrote:
Stephane,
You can't be serious: you learn something usefull from students acid
comments and nothing from the ones of Levente ?
Comm'on!
It's guaranteed that you'll get complaints. Only who doesn't do anything won't.
Forgetting is human, mistakes are, and unfortunately your are human too.
You must accept to fail, and you must accept some critics: it's up to
you to turn these in positive feedback.
cheers
Nicolas
2010/12/31 Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]>:
Thanks for the usual rant. This is good to have you here because we could have
forgotten.
Now of course we apply deprecation (we are probably the guy responsible to get
the methods in Squeak long long time ago)
but there are moments when there is too much to deprecate or when people forget.
And forgetting is humane. Now if your company has lot of money, we can hire
another engineer and work full speed
and apply even more software engineering practices.
Now it does not mean that we do not pay attention. We pay attention to people
and to their product.
May be each community needs its pain in the ass after all it shows that we get
cooler and cooler. But it would be nice
if you could give us a break.
Stef
On Dec 31, 2010, at 10:22 AM, Levente Uzonyi wrote:
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010, John McIntosh wrote:
Well the question as pointed out was does this vm support weak object
finalization? and since all closure vm support finalization, then
asking the question was mute, so it was ditched. Sophie from the 2003
era had to ask.
The need for the check it outdated, but the method is still sent by external
packages. With proper deprecation policy the method would be still available.
It would simply return true and raise a deprecation warning.
Levente
On 12/30/10, Schwab,Wilhelm K <[email protected]> wrote:
Hopefully that can eventually be said as "backward compatibility with good
stuff is a priority for Pharo." Moving targets are perhaps best left
moving for now.
________________________________________
From: [email protected]
[[email protected]] On Behalf Of Levente Uzonyi
[[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2010 6:13 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] WeakArray>>isFinalizationSupported
(or so) which is unrelated. The method was removed during a "cleanup". And
as you know, backwards compatibility is not a priority for Pharo.
Levente
--
===========================================================================
John M. McIntosh <[email protected]>
Corporate Smalltalk Consulting Ltd. http://www.smalltalkconsulting.com
===========================================================================
--
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
