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
|