how to become modular (was "Contributors Agreement signature
asqueaker at gmail.com
Sat Jul 14 15:08:56 UTC 2007
I'm late but I'd like to clarify something.
Pavel and Edgar's shrinking work is *needed* for Spoon because, TMK,
Spoon doesn't operate with units smaller than methods. Pavel and
Edgar are refactoring methods (I hope), extracting chunks of code from
methods doing too much into their own, smaller, methods.
This gives Spoon finer-grained pieces to work with to build a much
better quality minimal image when imprinting.
On 7/5/07, Craig Latta <craig at netjam.org> wrote:
> Hi JJ--
> (Is it just me, or do all your messages come through without
> newlines, even in the quoted material?)
> > Just as an observer from the side...
> What's holding you back?
> > ...isn't it the case that Pavel is trying the make the smallest
> > possible code base *with current Squeak* while you are making lots of
> > modifications to how the environment itself works?
> That's one way to put it, I suppose. However, I suspect there isn't
> an easy definition of what "current Squeak" is after you've done
> anything to it, unless your goal is to end up exactly where you started.
> Do we really want to end up where we started?
> > And if that's the case, would they still be cross purposes? I would
> > see it more as "low hanging fruit" (so to speak) vs. "the whole
> > shabang", no?
> No, that's not how I see it. There's more involved in the value of
> that fruit than the mere fact it hangs low. :) I think the amount of
> duplicated work, for results that aren't as useful, makes it something
> not worth doing that way (mostly because we are strapped for time and
> other resources). Having a short-term-gain mindset at all times will
> cause the total effort to be much harder and take much longer. I'm sorry
> if this sounds harsh (it sounds harsh to me, you don't need to convince
> me of that :). Despite that, I think it's still best to speak plainly here.
More information about the Squeak-dev