Sure, such strong opinions are going nowhere. and this thread isn't going to produce anything constructive as it started. Please take a more professional p.o.v. and tell which feature is lacking, which one is superfluous. Then, and only then, start discussing what is unnecessarily complex in current implementation and propose possible alternative implementations.
I insist on the features. For example, the fact that every class was cloned to implement internationalization certainly participates to such complexity, but the right question is about the features: should internationalization be optional and un-loadable or is it mandatory? Nicolas Le 22 avril 2012 20:34, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> a écrit : > > On Apr 22, 2012, at 8:04 PM, Chris Muller wrote: > >> Did your "Smalltalk Code Critic" tell you that or just another one of >> your biased opinions? > > Wow, why so aggressive? Do you really do *not* see the problems > that there are in Squeak? > >> Squeak is a fantastic media authoring >> environment > > It is not. I was a promising *idea* (and part protopype) of a fantastic media > enviroment in 1998. But then interestingly everyone decided that the best is > to not improve it or make it real. > >> -- even old versions from years past embarass programs >> like, say, PowerPoint. It's text-handling is fantastic -- remember >> the release image delivered with text on the desktop flowing out one >> text box, following along a loop-de-loop spline and into another text >> box? What other programs that can do that today in 2012..? >> > It's a toy example. Adding a character means re-flowing everything. > Unusable for larger texts. > >> In the spirit of Squeak, the original developers delivered a lot of >> power with little code. But yes, it's a complex domain and so >> reviewing the code in one afternoon may not meet your "aesthetic eye." >> > > The complexity in Squeak code does *not* come from the domain. > > Marcus > > -- > Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de > >
