On 13-02-2013, at 10:27 AM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> 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.
> 

Fair point; I was pretty much assuming Spoon-feeding it and failed to be clear about that.
> 
> 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.

All we need to do is work out what the good tools are and find the time to implement them whilst not starving in the process. Haven't we been there before ;-)


tim
--
tim Rowledge; tim at rowledge.org; http://www.rowledge.org/tim
"Bother" said Piglet, as Pooh smeared him in honey.