Better names than core and base (was Re: Proposal to get to the
triad)
Doug Way
dway at riskmetrics.com
Sun Mar 9 03:54:02 UTC 2003
I have to admit that Frank (and Tim) are right... perhaps "base" is not
the best term for the functional equivalent of the current image.
> ... it is not obvious from the names whether the
> progression should be <kernel to base to core> or <kernel to core to
> base>.
This is the main problem. I personally don't think it's as big a deal
if we don't have a perfect metaphor, as long as the progression is
obvious. For example, <kernel to core to kitchensink> might be good
enough, since kitchensink implies a lot of stuff. No one would think
kitchensink would be smaller than core. (Well, assuming people are
familiar with the expression "kitchen sink".)
Although a good metaphor would be even better. Colin's compass/circle
metaphor is pretty good. The "cardinal image" has a nice ring to it,
too. :-) The only potential downside I'd see here is that the
adjective "cardinal" typically means "primary" or "most important",
which may be misleading, or maybe that's fine.
I think we should keep both "kernel" and "core", though. (Unless
someone comes up with a dramatically better replacement for "core" as
part of a metaphor.)
Anyway, let's hear a few more suggestions before we nail this down.
- Doug Way
On Saturday, March 8, 2003, at 05:50 PM, Frank Sergeant wrote:
> Cees de Groot <cg at cdegroot.com> wrote:
>
>> Just thinking a bit of a gentle way to get to the kernel,core,base
>> triad
>> of images (it seems that there is general acceptance of the idea).
>
>> What we distribute now is called 'base'. I think that we have to do a
>> sweep down to 'kernel' first by stripping before we can think about
>> building up by adding. Here's a proposal:
>> - We release a duplicate of 'base' and call it 'core' ASAP. We apply
>
> I'm reasonably happy with the trio of concepts now called kernel, base,
> and core and with Cee's ideas about how to split the image into those
> things.
>
> However, I'd like to suggest an idea with regard to the /names/ of
> those
> concepts. Although I don't know what to suggest as improvements, I
> feel
> there must be better names. I hope we can find them now, before we are
> stuck forever with kernel, base, core.
>
> 1. It isn't obvious whether a 'base' is more primary than a 'core' or
> vice versa.
>
> 2. 'Base' and 'core' mix metaphors. Kernel to core could be thought of
> as widening concentric circles (or concentric cylinders or spheres) --
> so 'core' implies a circular metaphor. On the other hand, kernel to
> base is a stratification metaphor, implying layers atop lower layers.
> Because of this, it is not obvious from the names whether the
> progression should be <kernel to base to core> or <kernel to core to
> base>. It would be better to change the names of core and base to
> adhere to a common metaphor and to indicate a clear priority. (I think
> Hannes made a good point that 'core IDE' was better than 'core', but I
> think we can do even better than that.)
>
> Kernel is a good name; it is only base and core that need changing.
>
> (Kernel, core, magma, mantle) -- a circular/spherical metaphor
> (Kernel, crushed limestone base, asphalt finish) -- a stratification
> metaphor
>
> I hope someone can suggest some excellent names.
>
> Yours sporadically,
>
> -- Frank
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|