>- "System fullNameForChanges:" is simpler than "Changes fullName:"
>- "System fullNameForImage:" is simpler than "Image fullName:"
>- "System listBuiltinModules" is simplar than: "BuiltinModules list"
>- "System listLoadedModules" is simplar than: "LoadedModules list"

Nathanael, 
agreed on the first two but not so much agreed on the other two: 
"System builtinModuleNames" and "System loadedModuleNames" should it 
be from a POW of Smalltalks naming convention. #list could popup a 
window as could do #listBuiltinModules. "System" is not redundant!
You may not know when reading "BuiltinModules list" in some code what 
BuiltinModules are. You may think it is a class var and belongs to the 
specific code in question. 

Furthermore most utility-selectors will not allow you to 'extract' a 
className. Conversely some selectors in Squeak include the className 
for linguistic reasons. 

>addModulesToMenu: modules
>	...
>	modules list do: [:each |
>
>And you can invoke this method for both BuiltinModules and
>LoadedModules. This would not be possible with the first approach. So,
>why do you not want to take advantage of OO programming here? Why do 
>you like procedural programming better?

Most actions of these utilities are special, there is a good chance 
that you can't extract a common selector. In most cases you will not 
be able to define similar classes too. Thus you can't take advantage 
of OO programming. 

So you searched and found specific cases! 
Here is my specific counter-case:-) 

System memoryHogs -> Memory hogs

In some way you showed with your examples that there _is_ a danger to 
create too many new classes, once one started with the first one. I 
guess that is why I suggested to better stay with one, than have too 
many. For your examples I would say: 'Image' perhaps, but 
'BuildinModules' probably not. 

What are the rules for making a new class? Hard to say, and exactly 
this is another reason why there is little help for being stopped to 
do so. 

My feeling about such a rule is this:
These 'function-holder' classes are missing the primary reason to make 
a new class, that is, that there will be some instances of it. They 
even have no subclasses. If such objects don't have own individual 
data ( in inst vars ) they should at least represent a formidable 
object of the system which everyone has in mind and they should not 
have to few methods. 'System' the machine which brings Smalltalk to 
you, would be such a formidable object. 'Image' perhaps ( newbies 
often don't know that there is an image, but they know that there is a 
system ) but 'BuildinModules' is not enough. 

regards,
Martin