MC in basic

Ingo Hohmann iho at gmx.de
Mon Dec 13 09:00:56 UTC 2004


Andreas Raab wrote:
> 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.
<...>

Well, yes, I see your point.

Maybe we should remember Gorans mantra: "As a package on squeakmap."

What would be the negative sideeffects of starting a third image, like:

- multimedia: (aka "full"): etoys, wonderland, sound, ...
- dev: mc, syntax colour, test, ...
- base:  back to being really minimalist

I guess the drawbacks would be that
- most developers might work in dev, and there's a chance that 
multimedia is left aside.
- because of this there's a greater chance that multimedia apps might 
break by changes made by developers unaware of the multimedia package.

It should be possible if sufficient tests are available, and/or if some 
people using the multimedia versions would commit to test the system 
regularly.


What do you think?

Ingo




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list