MC in basic (was: Re: A roadmap for 3.9)

Tim Rowledge tim at sumeru.stanford.edu
Mon Dec 13 23:32:10 UTC 2004


"Andreas Raab" <andreas.raab at gmx.de> 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
Ah, ok. I sympathize.

I would re-point out that the basic image is pretty much the
developer-tools image and IIRC we agreed that would be the case unless
and until someone came up with a good way to make a really basic image.
It's possible that (given the the time and effort from someone, as
always) we could make a somewhat smaller basic image and then declare a
developer image to be that with a bunch of tools packages added and
then the full image be _that_ plus all the fun toys. It's not like
there isn't a vast swath of stuff that could be dropped to make such a
basic image.

There is a class of classes like OldSocket that should simply be got
rid of.
There are tools like file contents browser, zip filer, filelist[1 or 2
to taste], SM, etc that should be pulled out to packages.
There are morph things to pull out like, well, most of it.

So who is interested and has time?


tim
--
Tim Rowledge, tim at sumeru.stanford.edu, http://sumeru.stanford.edu/tim
"E=Mc^5...nahhh...E=Mc^4...nahh...E=Mc^3...ah, the hell with it."



More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list