Re: SmartEiffel shortcomings?

[email protected] wrote:

>>(OK, it's a user's point of view and not so important.)
>>    
>>
>
>Wolfgang, please keep cool.
>
>Philippe tried to explain our point of view. You may disagree but please 
>  
>
>don't be so sarcastic, your mails start to look like one L.S.'s and I 
>would have no choice but stop reading them too... (big, big grin!)
>
>  
>
Philip does consequently not answer to questions or arguments.
It is hard to send mails forth and back without becoming sarcastic.

Yes, I disagree: a published software (or book, ...) is devoted
to the users, not to the developers, it has to be written from
the potential user's point of view. Well, it may happen that parts
are not yet clear and have been published just for discussion.
But those parts have to be indicated leaving no doubts, otherwise
their purpose will be misunderstood. I remember that the
last Beta explicitly offered class STORABLE (the current
"What's new" page is less explicit but still misleading).
By what means can a reader of the announcement detect
that the class (and related things like the tutorial) is for
discussion only? It is a cheap argument to declare weeks or
months later that a specific feature was there for discussion
but not for use (and people arguing this way cannot
be considered for serious).

Fine, that you mention Lothar. I think, it is really a question
of cultural background: we (Lothar and me) expect more
conciseness, responsibility, ... and expect less arrogance, ...

>Don't worry: tutorial examples will work eventually. Should we put a big 
>warning in each not-yet-implemented class? I'd rather put a big warning in 
>each beta release: "not for the faint of the heart" ;-)
>
>  
>
Not a warning that Betas may not work here or there.
But an indication that new features are not for use but
for discussion (if this is the intention). See above.

>STORABLE is a big thing. You know that. That's why we wanted to test the 
>interface before developping it. So, our question is and remains, do you 
>have any comments about our interface? Of course the classes don't 
>compile, but do you feel at ease with how the source looks and feels? 
>  
>
Of course, I except that classes compile after publishing.
Once more, see above.
For the first time, I get an idea what you expect that I should do.
Can you be more explicit?

>Note that you now have all the tools to help us.
>  
>
And I do not understand one of them.

WJ