>>      For the apps I want to write, the fundamental module circularities
>> are expressed by:
>>
>>      http://thiscontext.wordpress.com/initial-spoon-modularization
>
> Yup, and notice how that doesn't fit the package structures we have
> now: we have classic Kernel stuff with some needed Collections bits.

It fits what Eliot was saying.  You can't have a "Kernel" without an
Array, or without an Exception.  These are fundamental to the system
and, realistically, any useful program.  I'm perfectly fine
considering Array, OrderedCollection, Set and Dictionary (and their
superclasses) as Kernel classes.

The minimum requirement of a Kernel is to be able to expand itself
with more capability to conduct real-world business.

CraigsKernel seems to be targeted at accomplishing that in the most
purposeful way possible in that it operates a web-server capable of

          "describing the behavior necessary to serve a website for
module discovery and management, appear as a WebDAV filesystem, keep
track of changes, and serve modules to other systems.

The system consists of 32 modules, 179 classes, and 1953 methods."

Concise, coherent, functional.  This is what Squeak 5's Kernel should be.


> If you think of Kernel as "the minimal core of a Smalltalk image",
> that makes sense. But Collections doesn't have a nice, clean user
> story behind it. It's just "if it smells like a Collection, it goes in
> here."