Hi,

I agree with Stéphane. IMHO its easier to have different 
entities/classes for different tasks. For example, when I want to deal 
with something related to memory, I'll search in ObjectMemory not in 
SystemDictionary. Its more staright forward/logical.

Anyway, Smalltalk library is large. And we all know that it take time to 
learn every thing. So, its not a problem to have different classes. 
Besides, multiplicity of classes is not an issue if we have classes with 
"meaninfull" names holding few methods... Note that by now, we still 
have multiplicity, but for methods (lots of methods in few classes)... 
and classes names does not mean all what can be done...

Noury
-- 

------------------------------------------
Dr. Noury Bouraqadi - Enseignant/Chercheur
Ecole des Mines de Douai - Dept. G.I.P
http://csl.ensm-douai.fr/noury

European Smalltalk Users Group
http://www.esug.org 

Squeak: an Open Source Smalltalk
http://www.squeak.org 
------------------------------------------



Stephane Ducasse wrote:

> Thanks Tim for your feedback.
>
> I do not think that this was a big effort. For us having 
> SystemDictionary half-way cleaned or not at all is the same.
>
> Look at VisualWorks or any other Smalltalk they have
>
> - SourceManager default condenseChanges
> - ObjectMemory fullGarbageCollect
>
> I do not really see the problem there. We will have another class 
> Image will 30 or 40 methods or more related to VM, Image, startup... 
> This is a logical place. Else we should put everything in Object and 
> Smalltalk.
>
> Stopping in the middle makes no point to us. In that case simply tell 
> us and we stop
> all the KCP effort. Really. We have no problem everybody will do it on 
> his corner and no problem.
>
> Andreas you should really ask nathanael what he thinks about the 
> kernel and ask him to give you a non swiss answer. I'm not the only 
> one that think that we need to clean that.
>
> Stef
>
>
>
> On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 01:31 AM, Tim Rowledge wrote:
>
>> "Andreas Raab" <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
>>
>>> Ah, now here's an interesting point - I wasn't aware that your goal 
>>> was to
>>> remove basically *all* methods from SystemDictionary.
>>
>> I hadn't noticed that the aim was quite _that_ high either; I think you
>> (Stef) might want to take this in smaller bites and rest a while in
>> between or you might go quite, quite mad. Seriously, you've been working
>> on this a long time and I suggest a rest and time to let what has been
>> done settle down a bit. There are plenty of other areas needing cleaning
>> up as well so don't obsess on just one.
>>
>>>  I'd still opt for a single
>>> generic utility class rather than twenty quite specific ones ;-)
>>
>> If there is a case where it is really, definitely an obvious good thing
>> to have a class to represent some utility, then sure, use it. I have to
>> agree with Andreas that for cases where there isn't anything really
>> clear, leave it in somewhere a bit more generic and make sure it's
>> commented as a temporary home. SystemDictionary is/was a real mess but
>> it was certainly easy to remember 'Smalltalk garbageCollect'. It might
>> be quite a bit more annoying to have to learn that the new system is
>> 'Memory garbageCollect' but 'VMSupport save: foo andQuit: true'. Or is
>> that 'Image save: foo andQuit: true'?
>>
>> tim
>> -- 
>> Tim Rowledge, tim at sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
>> Fractured Idiom:- VENI, VIDI, VISA - I came, I saw, I bought
>>
>
>