Levente Uzonyi-2 wrote: > > IMHO it doesn't matter if it's crap or not. What you should consider is: > - how widely is the API used? >
While this is practical and a great way to prioritize, I ultimately want a system that is clean and beautiful down as close to the metal as possible. In the past, when I've dug deeper (Morphic, VM, etc.), I got smacked by ugly, hard to understand code and broken processes. Usually, just to figure out what the heck is going on I have to spend time refactoring and cleaning before I can do my work. And at ESUG, I got the same feedback. For instance, when Morphic came up, I realized that we all end up reimplementing from the ground up (custom text morph, layout hacks) because it's so brittle. I talked to people all over the world waiting with great ideas, because they were bitten by the ugliness in the depths of the code. Once the necessary pain is done, I think many will step up and produce amazing things, but not if the cleaning and restructuring stops. For me to be confident and productive, I need to know that wherever I go, even if it's not very often, I will be at home and empowered to bend the system to my ends. For me, the releases are like OS releases with a super-human pace, which I enjoy and appreciate. That having been said, I have projects still using 1.2, and spend a lot of time keeping outside projects up to date as I upgrade. If that's the price for the system we all dream of, so be it. Levente Uzonyi-2 wrote: > > - how easy is it to implement a (partially) backwards compatible API? > In some cases, but how about file handling? "FileDirectory extensionFor: aDirectoryEntryFile name" vs. "anFSReference extension" Someone please cryogenically freeze me until the former is eradicated from the image. It hurts and offends me. My 2c, Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Omnibrowser-in-1-4-tp3774180p3778260.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
