[squeak-dev] LRUCache to Balloon?

Frank Shearar frank.shearar at gmail.com
Fri Nov 22 18:41:53 UTC 2013


On 22 November 2013 18:34, David T. Lewis <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:
>> On 22 Nov 2013, at 16:58, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> Yes, you are right there.
>>>> I would think, spinning of a new, small package would be a good
>>>> compromise?
>>>
>>> For THREE METHODS?  My God, PLEASE, no!
>>
>> Bingo! :) But seriously, why do you even care about the number of
> packages in the image?
>>
>
> Because package categories exist for the benefit of human beings who want
> to be able to read and understand the system.

Yes. And those names won't change, so..... ? You'd have as many
packages as you do system categories, if you broken every package up
right now into its hierarchically named parts.

But also if it ever arises that we really need a decent library of
various kinds of caches - Clojure has a _very_ nice way of expressing
various kinds of caches by composing different properties - we'll have
the perfect package for it. In that far distint time no-one will even
remember the day that Cache had a single, lonely class.

I would rather we put LRUCache into a _less bad_ package - Balloon -
than a _bad_ package like System. Because needing System couples you
to the Collections, Compiler, Compression, Environments, Files,
Graphics, Installer-Core, Kernel, Monticello,
MonticelloConfigurations, Morphic, MorphicExtras, Multilingual,
Network, PackageInfo-Base, Sound, ToolBuilder-Kernel, Tools, TrueType
packages, which in turn couples you to who knows what else.

> Dave
>
>
>


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list