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