No one is advocating that the image disappear, nor that you should be
prevented from working the way you want to today if you wish. We all
appreciate flexibilty and performance of the image.

In my ideal world the image would be a cache which is materialized from
a well structure set of modules. The choice of when to materialize the
image (including just download file from Squeak.org) and save it in my
directory should be absolutely yours. In the past images have been
packaged as everything from roms/flash (my favorite :)) to .exes, DLLs
etc. 


Dave Thomas


Bijan Parsia wrote:
> 
> --On Thursday, August 16, 2001 2:12 PM -0700 Allen Wirfs-Brock
> <Allen_Wirfs-Brock at Instantiations.com> wrote:
> 
> > So what are we trying to accomplish?  Dan listed a set of "desiderata"
> > that I can whole-heartedly support.  However, I would like to step up one
> > level before plunging into the details.
> >
> > My understanding is that a common goal is the elimination of the all
> > encompassing, monolithic image. I can't argue with that goal and I don't
> > think I need to reiterate all reasons this is desirable.  However, there
> > are a lot of different  reasons that different constituencies have for
> > wanting to see this happen.  I don't necessarily believe that one
> > solution will make everybody happy.
> [snipped interesting discussion of a reasonable distinction]
> 
> I wish to speak for the all encompassing, monolithic image. It's been
> pretty good to me, and good to Smalltalk (and similar systems).
> 
> Yes yes yes, shrinking is a pain. Etc. etc. etc. I'm with everyone.
> 
> But there's something *golden* about having a 4 file install (vm, image,
> sources, and changes). Wrestingly with VisualWorks packages and paths tends
> to make me grumpy. Python is way worse. SWI-Prolog (the other system I've
> been dorking with) is somewhat better, if just because it's less elaborate
> (at least, my install is).
> 
> Anything that sends me scurrying to the filesystem makes me want to HOLLER!
> (And not in joy :))
> 
> I think this is on the side of the "casual hacker" person :) I'm fairly
> sure all involved are with me, but I feel inclined to make noise about
> this. The monolithic image has virtues and I'd rather not *lose* them, if
> at all possible.
> 
> Similarly, there's already at least one modularity/polymorphism dynamic
> going on in the system. (I.e., classes and messages.) (Oh, and projects and
> changesets and *morphs* and views and... :)) This one is fairly thoroughly
> integrated with the system and its tools.
> 
> Anyway, you get the idea :) I wouldn't mind knowing whether a specific
> proposal let me end up with the "happy mess" that is the current image *if
> I want it*. Similarly, I favor solutions that build on the current
> mechanisms.
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan Parsia.