> On 12 Nov 2014, at 10:05, Igor Stasenko <siguc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 10 November 2014 12:18, Marcus Denker <marcus.den...@inria.fr
> <mailto:marcus.den...@inria.fr>> wrote:
>
> > On 10 Nov 2014, at 11:59, p...@highoctane.be <mailto:p...@highoctane.be>
> > wrote:
> >
> > I'd say that we have all have suffered enough from a sucky text editor.
> >
> > So, let's jump over the chasm with no regrets.
> >
> > We aren't doing Squeak, right?
> >
>
> I Squeak, there was always some simple next step. But the community always
> said:
> “No, Genius person X is working on Y which will be oh-so-much-better”.
>
> And therefore, the next step was not done. Of course, Genius Person never
> finshed
> Y, because, after nearly doing it, he realised: Wow, one can do it even
> better!
>
> And thus nothing was ever done.
>
> You should think of it in positive manner: there still a progress - the
> Genius learned how to make it even better!
> Who said that progress should always affect whole community, not just single
> Genius Person? :)
>
As long as it does not hold back the community… the vicious feedback cycle was
that people stopped doing
because they were waiting. Why improve the system if it will be replace “very
soon”? The problem is if that
“very soon” never happens, the system is dead.
Marcus
