Whither Squeak?

Torsten Sadowski moehl at akaflieg.extern.tu-berlin.de
Sat May 20 12:38:17 UTC 2006

Hi Peter,

ineffective is probably the wrong word. Wasteful is better. If 2 software
packages need the same nonstandard base it is likely both would would
bring a copy. This is simple but wasteful and would not work for Squeak.


On Sat, 20 May 2006, Peter Crowther wrote:

> > From: Torsten Sadowski
> [...]
> > There is no package system from Apple.
> > Large chunks of software reside in app bundles and frameworks which is
> > very modular but on the other hand ineffective. If I want to publish
> > software based on something not in the base system I put
> > everything I need
> > in the app bundle. And someone else does the same...
> Yes.  Microsoft have gone down the same route with .Net (and, in fact,
> with their application recommendations since the betas of Windows 2000 -
> about 8 years now).  It's the only way they've found to prevent the "DLL
> Hell", or more generally dependency hell, that plagues modular systems.
> It also means that an app bundle is standalone, requiring nothing more
> than a base system and certainly not requiring access to a package
> repository.  I don't know about you, but the incidence of applications
> that won't run because of incompatibilities has fallen markedly on the
> systems I manage since that time.
> I'm interested.  Why is this 'ineffective'?
> 		- Peter

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list