MC in basic (was: Re: A roadmap for 3.9)
tim at sumeru.stanford.edu
Mon Dec 13 23:32:10 UTC 2004
"Andreas Raab" <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> Tim wrote:
> >> b) I don't like the idea of MC in the base image.
> > What's your reasoning here? Do you not like MC, or is it too much code
> > to add, or do you have hopes for a different system to be emplaced
> > or.... ?
> The mere fact of dumping all of the stuff into "basic" is what I don't like.
> It has nothing to with MC - just that we're going back right to where we
> started. Let's see:
> Version # of classes # of methods
Ah, ok. I sympathize.
I would re-point out that the basic image is pretty much the
developer-tools image and IIRC we agreed that would be the case unless
and until someone came up with a good way to make a really basic image.
It's possible that (given the the time and effort from someone, as
always) we could make a somewhat smaller basic image and then declare a
developer image to be that with a bunch of tools packages added and
then the full image be _that_ plus all the fun toys. It's not like
there isn't a vast swath of stuff that could be dropped to make such a
There is a class of classes like OldSocket that should simply be got
There are tools like file contents browser, zip filer, filelist[1 or 2
to taste], SM, etc that should be pulled out to packages.
There are morph things to pull out like, well, most of it.
So who is interested and has time?
Tim Rowledge, tim at sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
"E=Mc^5...nahhh...E=Mc^4...nahh...E=Mc^3...ah, the hell with it."
More information about the Squeak-dev