[Squeakfoundation]An architecture for sustainable Squeaking

squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org squeakfoundation@lists.squeakfoundation.org
Sat, 2 Jun 2001 23:38:32 +0300

Joseph Pelrine <jpelrine@acm.org> wrote:
> At 18:05 02.06.2001 , danielv@netvision.net.il wrote:
> >Joseph Pelrine <jpelrine@acm.org> wrote:
> > > You're right, modularity is not everything, but it's a big step in the
> > > right direction. If you want to check out some good reference sources,
> > > start out by reading
> >[snip yummy references]
> > > More recent work can be found in Gamma et al.'s Paper on TeamStreams,
> > > presented at XP 2000 (I'm not sure whether there's a web link to it),
> >I think this is it -
> >http://www.xp2001.org/papers/Chapter9-Lippert+alii.pdf
> Definitely not that paper! I don't know what those guys think they're 
> doing, but it ain't XP. 
Why not?

>However, they have a reference to Gamma et al.'s 
> paper in there.
Yup, that (and being in XP200X) is what tricked me. My bad.
> >I miss having the RB and friends. One thing I missed in those was
> >something telling me my code is too complex - enter the HintingBrowser.
> >Someday soon I hope to have all those together on one image with
> >Celeste...
> Huh? I use the RB all the time for my Squeak work. I even call it from 
> SUnit to wrap quality control tests in my work. Contact Bob Hartwig - he 
> did the port, and is doing the StSq version too.
Last time I looked, the Squeak port wasn't fun(ctioning). I tried in the
StSq prerelease, and extract method (the smoke test) doesn't work. First
codePane wasn't set to the TextMorph, after fixing that manually. The
refactoring itself asserted in a case that should have worked.
You're saying this should work?

>   - Joseph Pelrine [ | ]