At 1:45 PM -0700 7/13/99, Stephen Pope wrote:
>Every multi-developer software package has to face the issue that Peter
>raised: utility vs. bloat.

Hmm... this is just one more reason to have a "component-oriented"
environment rather than an all-or-nothing monolithic one
(my impression of the current image arrangement).

In fact that's my biggest problem with fully adopting Squeak...
the monolithic image issue.

Both problems of "utility vs bloat" and "code reuse", to my little mind,
would be nicely addressed if Squeak had a component oriented
architecture. In this way, developers and users could add what _they_
wanted _when_ they wanted it. In particular developers could easily
build a "standard" environment adding their parts to it for a shippable
application.

Now, maybe a less obvious agenda for Squeak is to become an ersatz
replacement for the OS... I don't know.

But I'm thinking more of the dynamic runtime binding that was added
to NextStep (where Objective-C didn't have such a mechanism at the
system level and NextStep did). Maybe this is not the right model; the
Java class library doesn't seem like the right one either though.

Just my 2" ($0.02 for non-Mac users)

8-)




--**************************************************
    Jeff Szuhay                <mailto:jeffs at pstnet.com>
    Lead Macintosh Engineer    voice: 412/271-5040 x227
    Psychology Software Tools  <http://www.pstnet.com/>