On 28 January 2012 22:06, Hilaire Fernandes <hilaire.fernan...@edu.ge.ch> wrote: > May be it is time to forget about the image, I mean the name of the > image and change for something else, more in the proximal learning zone > of programmer. It is not an image we have, it is a data base of object, > and we are programming on this object data base. >
Hmm.. when i started with smalltalk, it was pretty obvious to me from the very starting that an image is a bunch of dead bytes, and there's not much you can do with it at that level. Apparently people should not use "image" as as interchange product between project teams. As for scale.. monticello scales well. And if you scale to something huge (200 people) , your main problem will be to organize a process, and establish a rules. People were doing huge projects without SCMs in the past.. so it think organizing large projects is more depending on social organization rather than on technical limitations of tools they will use. > Hilaire > > > Le 28/01/2012 17:50, dimitris chloupis a écrit : >> The issue with image here its easy to totally miss the whole point. An >> image is loading lighting fast , a java application is not, its also >> great way to organise object orientated code because it allows you to >> quickly navigate through it, loading files , is expensive and frankly >> quite archaic. The idea behind filesystem was created on the basic that >> computer could only load just a few kbs or even less because of limited >> memory. > > > -- > Dr. Geo -- http://www.drgeo.eu > > -- Best regards, Igor Stasenko.
