On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:02 AM, tim Rowledge <tim at rowledge.org> wrote:

> I've never yet been convinced that *un*loading packages as a general
> technique is a good idea; unload them once to make the small core image and
> make the packages *load* nicely. Being able to unload seems likely to
> require tracking what was changed so you can restore it - and not just once
> but potentially many times with odd combinations for multi layers of loaded
> packages. I'm not sure it is practical to have a system that avoids any
> possibility of interactions but I'd certainly be happy to be wrong.
>

In the absence of a full Spoon-like remote image development facility
unloadable packages give one the ability to work on the core image with the
full toolset.   One works on the fiul image and then unloads to get the
core.  Without Spoon or unloadable packaes one can;t work on the core, one
must construct it.


> My suspicion is that we will need some very good tools to help make,
> maintain, test and care for loadable packages. It's so easy for things to
> slide into cruftulescense.
>

Smalltalk can do good tools.


>
> tim
> --
> tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
> "How many tnuctip does it take to change a lightbulb?" "Depends what you
> want them to change it into."
>
>
>
>


-- 
best,
Eliot
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20130213/e785ad4e/attachment.htm