[Q] Speed comparison 2.8 vs 3.8

frits swinkels frits.swinkels at shaw.ca
Sun Aug 28 15:14:20 UTC 2005


Is there a repository where i can study this "patch"?

Marcus Denker wrote:
> 
> Am 28.08.2005 um 01:29 schrieb frits swinkels:
> 
>> Is it reasonable to ask that LookEnhancements are not merged into  the 
>> image but remain optional. This should be achievable in the  
>> packetized image?
> 
> 
> No. For that, we would need to have a theme engine or something like  
> that. The lookenhancements mcz is not a real package, it's a patch.  It 
> overrides
> lots of methods. Handeling packages with overrides will lead to a  
> complete mess soon (just think about what happens when two packages
> override the same method, or when the original will be changed...)
> 
>> The reasoning is as follows. The aesthetic quality of an  enhancement 
>> is in the eye of the beholder. I happen to be an  admirer of Tufte's 
>> work and I strive for a sober and subdued look  except for the 
>> important items and a look in which each item has to  say something or 
>> not take up pixels. Other people may prefer a  Heavy Metal look or 
>> whatever is currently fashionable in movie houses.
>> It would be counterproductive if all these people had to remove  
>> laboriously some look enhancement to be able to apply their own  
>> poison ;) This fits with a base image that does just enough but no  more.
>>
> 
> But he image right now does *not* do "just enough". I would argue  that 
> the enhancements actually provides a bit cleaner look that the  look we 
> have now.
> The only solution to this of course would be a real themable Squeak  
> *and* one good theme done by a designer, not a programmer.
> 
> 
>     Marcus
> 
> 



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list