In a message dated 8/26/98 11:56:06 AM Eastern Daylight Time, arning@charm.net writes:
I find myself torn between wanting some of these things around (at least sometimes) and wanting to keep Squeak simple and accessible. I don't have a good idea on how to draw the line other than to err on the side of
simplicity
Why does all the good stuff have to be in the image? Can't we get a Goodies collection together as fileIn's (or whatever), with the packages indicating their dependencies on other Goodies (as well as the base system required)?
Jerry.
On Wed 26 Aug, JArchibald@aol.com wrote:
Why does all the good stuff have to be in the image? Can't we get a Goodies collection together as fileIn's (or whatever), with the packages indicating their dependencies on other Goodies (as well as the base system required)?
We can and should - there's even a page on the central swiki to point to them (see http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak.1 -> Packages or Goodies) that already points to at least two of my goodies packages, let alone all the others.
tim
I was pondering this question one night and came up with an idea for an organic Squeak.
The internet has put us all in more or less direct contact with one another and by extension our images are all connected. If each of the images were aware of each other they could compare themselves on a class by class, method by method basis they could negotiate the contents of the base system and provide availability to any non-base system code that is available in the Squeaksphere(Sqhere?).
Development and experimentations would take place in the non-base regions of the Sqhere. Success would be reflected in the migration of code among images.
Security and stability issues aside, I think that this is an idea whoses time has come.
John-Reed
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org
-
JArchibald＠aol.com -
John-Reed Maffeo -
Tim Rowledge