On 22 November 2013 18:41, Frank Shearar <frank.shearar at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22 November 2013 18:34, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:
>>> On 22 Nov 2013, at 16:58, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Yes, you are right there.
>>>>> I would think, spinning of a new, small package would be a good
>>>>> compromise?
>>>>
>>>> For THREE METHODS?  My God, PLEASE, no!
>>>
>>> Bingo! :) But seriously, why do you even care about the number of
>> packages in the image?
>>>
>>
>> Because package categories exist for the benefit of human beings who want
>> to be able to read and understand the system.
>
> Yes. And those names won't change, so..... ? You'd have as many
> packages as you do system categories, if you broken every package up
> right now into its hierarchically named parts.
>
> But also if it ever arises that we really need a decent library of
> various kinds of caches - Clojure has a _very_ nice way of expressing
> various kinds of caches by composing different properties - we'll have
> the perfect package for it. In that far distint time no-one will even
> remember the day that Cache had a single, lonely class.
>
> I would rather we put LRUCache into a _less bad_ package - Balloon -
> than a _bad_ package like System.

To be clear: System isn't a bad package. It's a bad place for
LRUCache, because it has nothing to do with even the vague
multifarious purpose of System.

frank