In terms of possibilities, of course you are right. In the world we 
currently inhabit, everything from a PC with any OS to an iPod can hold 
a file, but few things are can be infected by streams of objects. So in 
the current context, files are still better memes.

But of course you (and Lex) are right - the solution is not to work like 
everyone else. I'm just saying that it is important to take practical 
sharing into account in shaping the way we work, and images are not the 
solution to that.

If you're claiming objects talking to one another live can be more 
practical for sharing than files, I'm saying that that has yet to be 
shown. I've seen compelling demos on occasion, but it hasn't become a 
permanent situation yet.

I think the most immediately promising directions for sharing Squeak 
code at the moment are things that could be build on top of Monticello, 
for example peer to peer ways to distribute its version files, like Cees 
was playing with about a while ago.

Daniel

Craig Latta wrote:
> 
>     Daniel writes:
> 
>  > The problem is that when everyone has them, it might be difficult to
>  > find someone to talk to.
>  >
>  > The analogy is deeper than it looks - how much code, how many
>  > projects, are preserved, but unshared, sealed in their own little
>  > images?
>  >
>  > As was demonstrated last ESUG, this makes for wonderful archeology.
>  > However, textual scripts that do not preserve too much context, but
>  > are just code, are in many ways easier to share with other people.
>  > Therefore, they are better memes than images are.
> 
>     That account of images still seems to take a file-oriented view. But 
> people need not be limited to exchanging the files of entire object 
> memory snapshots. They can get those object memories communicating to 
> each other in situ, by sending (possibly remote) messages.
> 
>     To twist the old quote, "messaging is the medium". :)
> 
> 
> -C
>