Convincing a harvester (was on SqF list)

Daniel Vainsencher danielv at netvision.net.il
Tue May 6 09:57:57 UTC 2003


1. I agree very much with the general statement, but what is inherently
non-modular about a font import facility?
2. This isn't (IIUC) a bunch of Fonts that automatically make an image
look better. AFAICT, it allows Tweakers of Looks to make an image
harder. In which case, we're not talking about something that would help
the absolute newbie, and for everyone else, loading a package is not
that hard. What am I missing?

Daniel

Marcus Denker <marcus at ira.uka.de> wrote:
> 
> On Tue, May 06, 2003 at 04:04:19AM +0200, Daniel Vainsencher wrote:
> > > > > * TrueType text style
> > [It provides support for beautiful fonts, as an example, you can see
> > Diegos look enhancements]
> > That wasn't hard, was it? BTW, it's too bad that this isn't the first
> > line of the SM packages description... you don't really expect people to
> > understand all that technical mumbo jumbo, right Yoshiki? ;-)
> >=20
> > I don't think it should go into the image. Anyone differs?
> >=20
> YES. I think this should be in the image.=20
> 
> Why:
> 1) I tried to explain this in the contexts of the the removals:
> Many seem to think that those packages on SqueakMap are good
> *because* they are a junk of code outside the image, loadable on
> demand. But this is wrong: Those junks-of-code on SqueakMap are
> only "good" *if* they are "modular". And for this, some very
> important properties need to be true
>      -> It need to have clear defined boundaries to the system
>      -> It needs to be somewhat "self-contained": There is one
>         thing it does, it's not only an improvement to some
>         code allready in the image.=20
> 
> SqueakMap is nice for those "non-module" junks of code (aka patches),
> but only as a vehicle for easy testing.
> 
> Lot's of patches on SqueakMap don't make a modular image, we only
> move complexety out ot SqueakMap, in a way that is even worse to
> what we have now.=20
> 
> (other examples for this are Diego's look enhancements, and the
> Debugger-Stubgeneration-patch)
> 
> 2) Making Squeak look better if even more important than all that
> technical refactoring stuff.=20
> Maybe I'm no typical Squeaker... most of you don't want to have Diego's=20
> changeset in the image, like strange colors and hate nice fonts...
> 
>      Marcus      =20



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list