Monticello, SM2, BFAV in 3.7alpha
Ingo Hohmann
uysl0l402 at sneakemail.com
Mon Feb 2 18:39:44 UTC 2004
Hi Stef, and all, and PMFJI,
ducasse wrote:
> Hi Michael
<...>
>> Doug Way wrote:
>>
>>> goran.krampe at bluefish.se wrote:
>>>
>>>> PS. We did more or less decide to stuff Monticello into Basic - perhaps
>>>> it is high time now that SM2 is running?
>>>>
>>> We could, if the current version of Monticello is reasonably stable.
>>> We should at least put it on the to-do list for 3.7alpha if we're
>>> sure we want to add it. http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu/squeak/3491
>>
>>
>> I may be the lonely kid on the block here, but I'm against it on
>> principle. I don't use the Monticello for a variety of reasons, but
>> besides that I don't want *any* (can I double bold this?) packaging
>> system in the basic system.
>> Packaging systems have the tendency to viral themselves into all
>> aspects of the core system and once they are there, nobody even has
>> the chance to come up with a different approach.
>
> Have you some other approaches? Because for me maintaining a script by
> hand is ***painfull***
> Does not scale.
He has a point here, though. Look at MSIE, why is it used by so many
people, despite the fact that there are other, superior and more secure
browsers? Because it's what you get when you have Windows. Why should
anyone try anything different???
On the other hand, of course, if MSIE _didn't_ come with windows, the
Internet wouldn't be what it is today, and no one would have bothered to
write those other browsers ...
Kind regards,
Ingo
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|