>> Did your "Smalltalk Code Critic" tell you that or just another one of >> your biased opinions? > > Wow, why so aggressive?
Not aggressive, just curious about what your point is Marcus? What is your point when you say something like, "isn't it amazing how bad Squeak is?" What does it mean when someone characterizes as "anarchy that runs in circles?" Or, another one I read recently on a blog comment: "Squeak is known to burn your eyes out. You should try Pharo!" It's all non-specific, non-helpful, antagonistic, fuddy-duddy nonsense. I've been rooting for Pharo (still am) and supporting it by blemishing my code on account of your whimsical renames, etc., so it will continue to run there. If you would lead a reciprocation of this sort of good will rather than divisive idle-commentary, it could be more productive. > Do you really do *not* see the problems that there are in Squeak? Of course I do, that's why I'm part of a group that's addressing them. I also happen to see problems with Pharo and some of the wrong decisions that have been made, but that doesn't mean I'm going to go out of my way to disparage your hard work. >> -- 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. "Larger texts", a la gigantic Word documents from the 90's thru today? We should be moving toward smaller bits of linked-information anyway, like what I've done with MaOffice for Squeak. Anyway, it doesn't matter -- you're right, it was just an example illustrating the capability. - Chris
