[squeak-dev] Gofer versus Installer was: The Trunk:
Morphic-laza.489.mcz
Edgar J. De Cleene
edgardec2005 at gmail.com
Mon Dec 13 19:51:54 UTC 2010
On 12/13/10 6:23 PM, "Bernhard Pieber" <bernhard at pieber.com> wrote:
> Hi Ken,
>
> If you ask... ;-)
>
> Am 13.12.2010 um 18:21 schrieb Ken G. Brown:
>> I for one do not want to see Installer disappear.
>> Can anyone explain to me what advantage GoFer has over Installer?
>> Seem to me they are doing more or less the same thing.
> I like Gofer better than Installer for the following reasons:
> - Gofer has an active maintainer, the original author still maintains it.
> - Lukas writes top quality Smalltalk code IMO. I find the code cleaner. (That,
> of course, may just be my personal preference.)
> - Gofer is much smaller than Installer - 640 lines of code versus 1703 - thus
> the image would be smaller if we replaced Installer with Gofer.
> - At the same time Gofer has more functionality which I find quite useful,
> committing, fetching and pushing. See http://www.lukas-renggli.ch/blog/gofer
> for a short description.
> - Installer has a lot of code which is rarely used.
> - Installation code for packages which are compatible between Squeak and Pharo
> could be the same in many cases, which I find less confusing.
> - This brings Squeak and Pharo closer together again, which would be a good
> thing IMO.
>
> Enough reasons in my opinion. Of course, reasonable people might disagree. ;-)
>
> Cheers,
> Bernhard
We should upload all Installer, SqueakMap, ScriptLoader, ReleaseBuilder,
etc.
Monticello is enough if good practice was adopted.
Edgar
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|