Chris Muller-3 wrote > I don't know if its just romantic, starry-eyed mountain climbers or > intentional false-propaganda
Or both! ;) Chris Muller-3 wrote > This example is bunk Well, you're partly right - the clean version is not due totally to FS. You'd be more right if human beings were rational beings. But we're not, we're driven by emotion. I /feel/ bad when I look at FD, because I find it ugly and confusing. Therefore, I would be reluctant to refactor that code and it probably would still be in the state it is. But I was excited to have well-factored, intuitive FS objects to work with, which boiled into me searching the system for ugly code to clean. That example was a quote from a previous post in my excitement after cleaning and making the system better. Beauty and simplicity reverberates out well beyond the initial objects... that's good enough for me. Sean -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/About-backwards-Compatibility-tp4658784p4659295.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
