(responding to an old thread)

Noury Bouraqadi wrote:

> Diego Gomez Deck wrote:
>
>> I vote to cover only user assuming the developers can assemble they own
>> images. 
>
> What about developpers new to Squeak? We need to provide them with 
> most popular/usefull programming tools. I'm thinking to my students. I 
> use Squeak in my courses to introduce OO programming. I have only few 
> hours for it. Then I leave students play with Squeak (for those 
> willing to) on their own. Of course, I can provide them a special 
> image with a set of tools.
> But :
> - they get more impressed if they learn that all those tools are 
> provided in the official image
> - they may get lost if they they work during clases with my specific 
> image and don't retreive the same tools when downloading  a new "full" 
> version


I agree.  I think it's probably simpler to have just have one Full image 
which has lots of developer goodies as well as media content.  It's not 
worth the extra maintenance effort to have a special Media-Full image, 
and then a Developer-Full image.  Image size should not be an issue... 
for those who don't have enough memory (should only be PDA users at this 
point), they should use Basic anyway.  (At this point even the Squeak 
Full image is tiny compared to a Java development environment like Eclipse.)

However, I understand that getting this Full Assembler package together 
is a lot of work for Diego.  So if he wants to limit the amount of 
developer goodies to a modest number of things for now, that makes 
sense.  I guess it depends a lot on which packages tend to cause 
conflicts by overwriting methods, etc... that should be discouraged as 
much as possible and we should get any necessary changes into the base 
image instead.

Anyway, as a start, I'd say something like the Refactoring Browser would 
be worth having in Full, assuming it's in working order and doesn't 
cause too many conflicts.

- Doug