[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
|