Bill, I agree with the "no real argument" bit:)
Dae ----- Original Message ----- | From: "Wilhelm K Schwab" <[email protected]> | To: [email protected] | Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 3:08:33 PM | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration browser more visible? | | No real argument, but it's not "my choice" - it's the only option. I | had parsers not work and *COMPLETE* meltdowns that would scare away | any new user, both until I followed the advice to shun the symbolic | versions. | | Yes, there are gaps to close. | | | | | ________________________________________ | From: [email protected] | [[email protected]] on behalf of Dale | Henrichs [[email protected]] | Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 4:26 PM | To: [email protected] | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the configuration | browser more visible? | | Bill, | | If you value the opinions of "your experts" over the good advice that | you have received on this thread so far then that is your choice. | | I'd say that your "experts" have a gap to close... and you should | expect them to close it... | | Dale | ----- Original Message ----- | | From: "Wilhelm K Schwab" <[email protected]> | | To: [email protected] | | Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 11:23:14 AM | | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the | | configuration browser more visible? | | | | It seems very reasonable to have such a crucial infrastructure to | | have some base support in the core image. But I have had experts | | tell me to *never* load a symbolic version. There is a gap to | | close... | | | | | | | | ________________________________________ | | From: [email protected] | | [[email protected]] on behalf of Sean P. | | DeNigris [[email protected]] | | Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2012 12:08 AM | | To: [email protected] | | Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] What about making the | | configuration | | browser more visible? | | | | Schwab,Wilhelm K wrote | | > | | > Put another way, if it's that simple, why all the contrary | | > instructions | | > over time? | | > | | | | I understand your frustration. We are like parents watching a child | | grow | | up... | | | | For one thing, the API has been evolving as we've learned. From | | loadLast/Latest, to bleedingEdge/development, now to symbolic | | versions | | (which were sorely needed). | | | | The other impediment was that Metacello couldn't be assumed to have | | preloaded any base classes. Thus, ConfigurationOfXxx classes rely | | on | | someone | | manually (or automatically via tools) adding convenience methods. | | Without | | these, the API is hidden away in the project class. | | | | Recently, there seemed to be some agreement between Squeak and | | Pharo | | to load | | some base Metacello classes. If Configs had a common subclass, I | | think the | | system browser would be much more helpful. | | | | Dale, what do you think about all this? | | | | HTH, | | Sean | | | | p.s. of course ultimately, success depends on people testing | | projects | | and | | updating the configs... | | | | -- | | View this message in context: | | http://forum.world.st/What-about-making-the-configuration-browser-more-visible-tp4590573p4594228.html | | Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. | | | | | | | | |
