<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:02 AM, tim Rowledge <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tim@rowledge.org" target="_blank">tim@rowledge.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I've never yet been convinced that *un*loading packages as a general technique is a good idea; unload them once to make the small core image and make the packages *load* nicely. Being able to unload seems likely to require tracking what was changed so you can restore it - and not just once but potentially many times with odd combinations for multi layers of loaded packages. I'm not sure it is practical to have a system that avoids any possibility of interactions but I'd certainly be happy to be wrong.<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>In the absence of a full Spoon-like remote image development facility unloadable packages give one the ability to work on the core image with the full toolset. One works on the fiul image and then unloads to get the core. Without Spoon or unloadable packaes one can;t work on the core, one must construct it.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
My suspicion is that we will need some very good tools to help make, maintain, test and care for loadable packages. It's so easy for things to slide into cruftulescense.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Smalltalk can do good tools.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
tim<br>
--<br>
tim Rowledge; <a href="mailto:tim@rowledge.org">tim@rowledge.org</a>; <a href="http://www.rowledge.org/tim" target="_blank">http://www.rowledge.org/tim</a><br>
"How many tnuctip does it take to change a lightbulb?" "Depends what you want them to change it into."<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>best,<div>Eliot</div>