On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:56 AM, Craig Latta <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > And all that in 2 big files that one can only append to because? > > > > No idea, actually... > > > > > > > > I personally think that it is a mistake today to merge all these > > > > into one such basic mechanism. Especialy if > > > > you look at how complex the code is in the image... it's actually > > > > amazing. > > > > > > Hear hear. I think it's insane to do it (only) this way at this > > > point. Objects everywhere... > > > > > can you elaborate? do what at which point? > > To use source code written on files to record history information, > at this point in history where we have more than enough processor, > network, and disk to just use live distributed object memories. I can > see keeping the old stuff around for a while as a redundancy mechanism, > but we needn't rely on it alone. > But both Occam's razor and IIABDFI (if-it-aint-broke-dont-fix-it) say we should keep with it. It has worked extremely well with Squeak/Pharo, is robust, persistent, and simple. Realistically we're not going to move to Spoon over night, so what to do about a 37Mb changes file is a pressing issue. Being able to compress with history and/or write a new sources file with compressed history makes sense. It's not being unimaginitive or regressive, or anti-innovation; merely pragmatic. > > -C > > -- > Craig Latta > www.netjam.org/resume > +31 6 2757 7177 > + 1 415 287 3547 > > > > -- best, Eliot
