On 12/14/12, Sean P. DeNigris <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
The difference is file := FileDirectory directoryEntryFor: aString. "FileDirectory" as opposed to file := aString asFileName. "FileSystem" As Chris points out, the difference is minimal. Sean, it looks like you need better examples to show how you perceive the benefits of the FileSystem design > 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. Yes, FileDirectory has it's limitations. Many years ago I wrote a layer to deal with directory navigation for my own projects. As Marcus D. points out it is good that people have an OO abstraction to deal with directories and files. It saves time for beginners and new projects. In Squeak the discussion goes the way that FileDirectory should become a loadable package after FileSystem has been integrated in version 4.5. That way images with packages which require FileDirectory may still be built. --Hannes > 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
