[igouy]

Firstly:

company-specific base image = base image + company-specific source code fileIn

Why could we not be completely sure that company-specific base image + source code fileIn didn't "contain things it shouldn't" ?

Secondly:

> … also things in the original images of the commercial STs that one would or should not ship with the product.

That doesn't seem to be an example of "You could never be completely sure that it didn't contain things it shouldn't."

That seems to be an example of you being completely sure.

[Rochus]

Not sure what you're up to; there were things in the image nobody had the source code (or the current version) anymore, but even with the source code it was a nightmare; it would undoubtedly have been less bad had I then had tools like I recently built for ST80 and the knowledge gained with them.

[igouy]

> … nobody had the source code … anymore…

!

Would we blame Ada tools because we did not archive the source code we wrote?

> … even with the source code it was a nightmare…

What I was "up to" was trying to get past sweeping condemnation to understandable criticism.

[Rochus]

That was my personal impression as a trained engineer based on relevant experience, not a condemnation; I on the other hand find it annoying when some people glorify Smalltalk in retroperspective and attribute to it any great qualities without evidence and against better knowledge; nevertheless, the technology is impressive in a historical context and worth studying (but I still wouldn't use it for industrial projects anymore and would also not like to tempt other people).

[igouy]

> … annoying when some people glorify Smalltalk…

Is that something you wish to claim I do? :-)