<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Hi Luciano,<br>
<br>
On 5/9/2022 11:07 AM, Luciano Notarfrancesco via Cuis-dev wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAL5GDyq2XbTph6NFN_L2f+5CCOrMHhgn20xofYdOnRyJxhKaLA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Context-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div>...<br>
</div>
<div>I’ve been wondering for a while now how to deal with a
growing image. </div>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is always important for me! I think we are doing reasonably
well. The number of classes in the system grew around 15% in the
last decade, or so. But we'd always try to do better.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAL5GDyq2XbTph6NFN_L2f+5CCOrMHhgn20xofYdOnRyJxhKaLA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div>Maybe it’s not a concern for most people, but IMHO everything
that doesn’t absolutely need to be included in the base image
should be a package, and I include in that category many of the
tooling that is currently in the image. But a contribution that
is not included in the base image might feel under appreciated.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
In many cases it is hard to make a decision. The criteria I adopted
long ago is that the base image should be great for Smalltalk
developers. So, every fundamental Smalltalk tool should be included.
But not several alternative versions of it, or tools that are not
used by the vast majority of Smalltalk developers.<br>
<br>
This means that contributions that are not part of the base image
shouldn't be considered under appreciated. Just not the main
implementation of a fundamental functionality. Take my code, for
instance. Nothing has been more important to me that VectorGraphics
and TrueType in the last few years. But those are not part of the
base image. Why? Because there is also BitBltCanvas and StrikeFonts.
Only one of these should be in the base image. The other should be
in a loadable package. If at some time we see no longer value in in
BitBltCanvas and StrikeFonts, we could add VectorGraphics and
TrueType to the base image. But only if at the same time we remove
the old stuff.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAL5GDyq2XbTph6NFN_L2f+5CCOrMHhgn20xofYdOnRyJxhKaLA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div>I’ve been thinking that might be good to have a list of
packages that are automatically loaded on image startup after
asking the user, like Squeak does. Or have a “standard
distribution” image that comes with some core packages
installed. So some very useful packages could be put among those
core packages that form the standard distribution. And maybe we
could move out of the image some of the tools like SUnit,
ObjectExplorer, etc.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think this could be good. The choice of packages to load should be
in a configuration file, so, someone not wanting (for instance)
ObjectExplorer, or wanting to add TrueType, can simply edit that
file.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAL5GDyq2XbTph6NFN_L2f+5CCOrMHhgn20xofYdOnRyJxhKaLA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div>Also in this way we would enforce modularity and end up with
a base image that changes less often, and also having simpler
tools in the base image would make it easier for people to make
their own tools as they wish (and this is a typical thing
Smalltalkers like to do, I think, as Stephen did with the 6
paned browser).</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Agreed. Besides, I also expected the base image to change less, and
more activity to be in packages.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAL5GDyq2XbTph6NFN_L2f+5CCOrMHhgn20xofYdOnRyJxhKaLA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div>It’s just an idea, it’s not my place to make this kind of
choices but I thought I’d share my thoughts.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
These kinds of choice should be discussed here. To come up and work
on new ideas. And if afterwards we don't agree on a common strategy,
to discuss and coordinate possible parallel development, like Gerald
is doing with Haver. There's nothing wrong with doing that!<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAL5GDyq2XbTph6NFN_L2f+5CCOrMHhgn20xofYdOnRyJxhKaLA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div>Does anyone else wish to have a smaller and simpler base
image?</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAL5GDyq2XbTph6NFN_L2f+5CCOrMHhgn20xofYdOnRyJxhKaLA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div>If so, what are your ideas as for how to implement it?</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I've been wanting a headless image, that maybe runs smalltalk
scripts, for a long time. What has stopped me is the convenience of
the Smalltalk tools! When I try to imagine how it would be to work
with that, I put it aside and keep enjoying Smalltalk.<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
-- <br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
Juan Vuletich
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.cuis-smalltalk.org">www.cuis-smalltalk.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/Cuis-Smalltalk/Cuis-Smalltalk-Dev">https://github.com/Cuis-Smalltalk/Cuis-Smalltalk-Dev</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://github.com/jvuletich">https://github.com/jvuletich</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/juan-vuletich-75611b3">https://www.linkedin.com/in/juan-vuletich-75611b3</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://independent.academia.edu/JuanVuletich">https://independent.academia.edu/JuanVuletich</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Juan-Vuletich">https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Juan-Vuletich</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://patents.justia.com/inventor/juan-manuel-vuletich">https://patents.justia.com/inventor/juan-manuel-vuletich</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://twitter.com/JuanVuletich">https://twitter.com/JuanVuletich</a></pre>
</body>
</html>