Daniel Vainsencher <danielv at netvision.net.il> wrote:
> However, these things should not be local to the image, and shouldn't be
> specific to code. That is, everything I write - a mail in Celeste, notes
> in a workspace, code - should be saved to an external repository all the
> time, and that repository should not be dependent on the specific image,
> and browsing through it should not be as painful as looking at the
> changes file is. 
> 

That's quite a difference of philosophy we have.  I really like using
objects, and thus I try to stay within an object engine as much as
possible.  It seems like a losing game to try and make external files
interact nicely in an OO context.

Just use objects, IMHO.  If you really want things not to be local to
the image, then make a way to externalize and share the objects.  This
should be easier than the other way around, where you try to make files
act like objects.

I don't even tend to want to share objects that much, though.  I have
one image with almost everything in it.  When I upgrade (maybe once or
twice a year), I export any important projects and changesets and load
them into the new image.

The image *is* a repository.



> [Using the class as the model and Browser as UI for personal
> information]
> Yes, I like that idea better, I've thought about it in the context of
> papers - that it would be nice to write papers in a browser, overriding
> classCompiler so that methods are treated appropriately (for example,
> converted to LaTeX and passed to the native tools for rendering when I
> ask for it).

Yes, though you can also just use comments and not need to replace the
compiler.

Lex