Hi, On 1 Jan 2012, at 23:56, Lukas Renggli wrote:
>> To you, the current Pharo image is the Pharo Core and you are unhappy that >> it is too big (for example because RB is there). > > The size is the least problem. > > More annoying is that the code quickly gets out of sync and > non-changes are added to the history. Both of these problems are > already visible today. > > Additionally, over time people will change/add/remove features that > get integrated without proper review. I just had a look at the > announcement framework in Pharo 1.4 today, it is unbelievable how a > tiny framework could degrade to a bloated, untested and dead slow pile > of mud in just a few years :-( I think your are unfair here. The new features might be untested (current coverage is at 56%), but the changes were meant to provide working weak announcements. And they do work. But, what do you mean by slow? How did you benchmark it? > Moreover, every generic framework included with the core will sooner > or later introduce dependencies from random core packages. This only > makes it harder to have a modular system. And people that want to use > another refactoring engine (or another version thereof) are excluded, > because existing code depends on the included version. Again look at > where the announcements are used and how people work around to use > their own implementation. There is a point in here. But, as I said, I thought that the point is to produce the core by having jenkins strip away unwanted material. Of course, the other way would be to start from the core as a seed and have jenkins produce the current image. >> p.s. I am happy that the competition pushes OB to get trees and resizable >> panes :) > > OB does not intend to compete with Glamour. OB only aims at a tiny > subset of what Glamour tries to solve. This was intended to be a joke. It deserved at least a "Happy New Year" :). Doru > Lukas > > -- > Lukas Renggli > www.lukas-renggli.ch > -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every now and then stop and ask yourself if the war you're fighting is the right one."
