Tim wrote:
>> b) I don't like the idea of MC in the base image.
> What's your reasoning here? Do you not like MC, or is it too much code
> to add, or do you have hopes for a different system to be emplaced
> or.... ?

The mere fact of dumping all of the stuff into "basic" is what I don't like.
It has nothing to with MC - just that we're going back right to where we
started. Let's see:

Version    # of classes         # of methods
3.5              1811                 41444
3.6-basic        1338                 33303
3.7-basic        1544                 35548
3.8-basic        1652                 37703
3.9-basic        1700                 38861

Raise your hands if you see a pattern. If we add Monticello we get:

3.9-basic+MC     1825                 40434

Finally we're on par with 3.5 again - which coincidentally was the version
of Squeak where people complained bitterly about all the excess baggage that
SqC had put into Squeak. So then we put VMMaker, Games, Celeste, Balloon3D,
Wonderland, Scamper into packages. Only to replace them with m17n,
SqueakMap, SUnit, Tests, (and soon) Monticello in basic.

In short, we really need to do something to make a "basic" image which
actually deserves the name - if only to keep ourselves honest with respect
to the modularity issues we have anyway. This is what I consider a "grave
mistake" (actually "fallacy" is the right term to use) - the idea that you
can dump all this stuff into the image and that adding "just a little more"
code will make the problem go away.

[And yes, I do owe Goran an apology here - from the evolutionary point he 
was exactly right with his insistance not to put anything in basic that 
could be avoided]

Cheers,
  - Andreas