On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 8:14 AM, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:

>  http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/3786
>  http://wiki.squeak.org/squeak/3785
>
> Regardless of what tools are used, the concepts are important to
> understand and I think that Lex provided the clearest and simplest
> explanation of this that I've seen.

I agree that the ideas are very important.   The implementation wasn't
that bad, either, though it was not integrated into everything else as
well as it could be.  In the long run, it is better to put the good
ideas in other tools.

The thing I disliked the most about Universe was the name.   I think
that Ecosystem would have been a better name.   Consider "A package
ecosystem is a set of packages that are known to work together.  They
have been tested to make sure they do.  A package can be a part of
several ecosystems, but you shouldn't assume that a package that works
in one ecosystem will work in another."   Or you could say "A package
universe is a set of packages that are known to work together.  They
have been tested to make sure they do.  A package can be a part of
several universes, but you shouldn't assume that a package that works
in one universe will work in another."

"Universe" to me means "everything".  I know that physicists talk
about multiple universes, but most of us non-physicists don't.  It
just seems weird to me to talk about multiple universes.

But the ideas are very important!

-Ralph