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