[Q] Speed comparison 2.8 vs 3.8
Marcus Denker
denker at iam.unibe.ch
Sat Aug 27 23:43:58 UTC 2005
Am 28.08.2005 um 01:29 schrieb frits swinkels:
> Is it reasonable to ask that LookEnhancements are not merged into
> the image but remain optional. This should be achievable in the
> packetized image?
No. For that, we would need to have a theme engine or something like
that. The lookenhancements mcz is not a real package, it's a patch.
It overrides
lots of methods. Handeling packages with overrides will lead to a
complete mess soon (just think about what happens when two packages
override the same method, or when the original will be changed...)
> The reasoning is as follows. The aesthetic quality of an
> enhancement is in the eye of the beholder. I happen to be an
> admirer of Tufte's work and I strive for a sober and subdued look
> except for the important items and a look in which each item has to
> say something or not take up pixels. Other people may prefer a
> Heavy Metal look or whatever is currently fashionable in movie houses.
> It would be counterproductive if all these people had to remove
> laboriously some look enhancement to be able to apply their own
> poison ;) This fits with a base image that does just enough but no
> more.
>
But he image right now does *not* do "just enough". I would argue
that the enhancements actually provides a bit cleaner look that the
look we have now.
The only solution to this of course would be a real themable Squeak
*and* one good theme done by a designer, not a programmer.
Marcus
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|