MC in basic
Hernan Tylim
htylim at yahoo.com.ar
Mon Dec 13 12:14:51 UTC 2004
Oh Come on!!!. That's not fair. You can't just count classes and methods.
What is important is not the number of classes but the number of
'features' that should be included on a Basic image. So if a I develop a
Pacman game in only one class and with as less methods as possible. Does
It deserves more to be on basic than MC ?? Besides, wasn't all the time
the idea to add MC *as*a*package* on the image? As today is for example
the PackageLoader and the SUnit Test Runner? ??
And last. I will allways prefer a system with many classes but with
consise and distinct responsibilities, that other with few classes that
suffer from multiple personality disorder syndrome.
Regards,
Hernán
Andreas Raab wrote:
> 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.
[...snip...]
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|