Monticello, SM2, BFAV in 3.7alpha

Michael Rueger michael at squeakland.org
Mon Jan 26 23:35:38 UTC 2004


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.

The total and utterly failure of the module system, from which we had to 
back out as we couldn't remove it any more, taught us a lesson, please 
let's remember it.

I'm not saying that Monticello is not a usable (and hopefully at some 
point stable) system, but packaging should not be built-in. Period.

I like the SM approach, as it does not enforce a particular packaging 
approach, but rather allows people to post their code in whatever 
loadable format they want.

Michael





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list