[Meta] Standard packages?

stephane ducasse stephane.ducasse at free.fr
Mon Jul 23 15:04:12 UTC 2007


Me too.
Having good libraries that we can share would be really nice.

Stef

>> Yes, I agree that it would be difficult to determine. That's why I  
>> suggested
>> to get back to the basic ST-80 features (but with the bug fixes  
>> (etc) that
>> Squeak today encompasses.)
>
> But an image - any image - necessarily goes beyond "basic ST-80
> features".  An image tends to include a UI, but should this be MVC,
> Morphic, or Tweak?  With what fonts?  With what icons, color themes,
> etc?  An image tends to include dev tools, but should these be based
> on Browser or OmniBrowser?  An image has a metaclass hierarchy, but
> based around Behavior or Trait?
>
> The set of necessary things for an image does include some contentious
> areas.  However, I think Andreas is right that there are some areas
> that are (I believe) much less contentious, like the Collection and
> Number hierarchies, as well as (mostly) Stream, Exception, Socket,
> etc.  These aren't enough by themselves to make a full image, so we'll
> never agree on a "base image" to build everything else from.  But it
> does seem reasonable (both socially and technically) to jointly manage
> improvements to these standard packages, across the many forks and
> versions of Squeak.  I'd certainly love to see this happen.
>
> Avi
>
>




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list