RE: The Harvesting process and the BFAV

"Andreas Raab" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > And I strongly urge people to think about this -
> > why is the image so poorly commented? Because SqC took exactly this
> > approach - "better to getthe stuff in, who cares, we can 
> > write comments later".
> 
> Err ... actually this is wrong. Really, we never intended to "write comments
> later".

True. You probably didn't think like I wrote it. I take that back! And
you probably had your reasons - you didn't intend to go open source etc,
it was your own "box" and it was of course all up to you how you worked
etc. I didn't imply any blaim. :-)

But nevertheless the net effect is the same unfortunately - and I don't
think we should go on doing the same mistake. If anyone disagrees with
this I am all ears, please tell me why it would be good to insert
uncommented code into Squeak. And, no - again I am of course not talking
about setters/getters.

> We were no vendor just a bunch of people willing to share their
> (unfinished) tools with the rest of the world. If you expect a fully
> documented system then find a vendor. That's what they do.

First if all - I don't expect a "fully documented system". But I do want
Squeak to improve in this respect because it just isn't good. And we all
know that.

But again, I expressed myself wrongly.

Sorry.

regards, Göran