On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:56 AM, Craig Latta
<craig@netjam.org> 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.