On 29 August 2011 19:47, Lukas Renggli <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> No more for me. >>>>> >>>>> Introducing more code into Pharo that depends on more parts of Pharo >>>>> (RPackage, Announcement, Pragma, Ring, RB, Shout, ...) doesn't make it >>>>> easier to maintain and change Pharo. Or did I misunderstand something >>>>> about cohesion and coupling? :-) >>>> >>>> With that philosophy, we can just declare Pharo as finished and do >>>> something >>>> else. >>>> My point of view is that I invent new abstractions *and than use them* on >>>> and >>>> for the system itself. >>> >>> I disagree; I would like a small and stable Pharo in which crazy ideas >>> can be realized. For that I don't need fancy abstractions, but a >>> minimal, simple and absolutely stable system in which I can load and >>> do whatever I want. Maybe this is just me? >> >> Is the current system simple and minimal? > > No, it is complex and it is getting bigger with every release. >
No, i wouldn't say so. Most fixes and improvements are still about cleaning things out and fixing bugs. But not about new features. Even if you consider Zinc as a movement towards "getting bigger", consider an alternative: having library which follows standards, or keep using hacks which were not complete and useful only for most simple cases. I am also against growing system unless it is necessarily. In 1.3. i added a new 'non-interactive' mode and non-interactive ui manager. And this was necessarily, because we need a way to deal with "hanging images" in headless mode. Now we can run images on jenkins, knowing that it will never enter 'click ok to proceed' state. >> Do you think the Pharo we have is good enough to have a future? > > No, there is a lot to be improved. I think the future of Pharo is what > can be built on top, not what can be integrated and forced upon > everybody. > Lukas, there is nobody forcing anyone. How we (or anyone else) can force people to use Pharo? A new and 'unproven' tools are 'forced' into images mainly to collect feedback. And i think it is good strategy, because most people *including me* are too busy/lazy to go & download and install new stuff and try it out. I don't like some rough edges of Nautilus. And it is certainly having less features than OB. But.. I think if you compare it to basic browser which we have in our image.. you will see. (p.s. and yes i am totally agree with you - a sidebar buttons in Nautilus are ugly ;) -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
