You're mixing modularization, namespacing, packaging and parametrization. If we're speaking about modules/namespaces I rather call them as such, not Pink Elephant. Having an agreement on the terms semantic is important for any communication.
To me a module is not a factorization for the bootstrap process nor the proper packaging to enable partial loading, a module must be reified as such. The only Smalltalks I remember had something closer to a module were VisualSmalltalk and maybe VisualWorks binary parcels can be thought as modules, but strictly speaking none of them implement modules as such. Only Modtalk tried to do that, but the project seems defunct now. Regards, Esteban A. Maringolo 2017-10-13 12:00 GMT-03:00 Dimitris Chloupis <kilon.al...@gmail.com>: > Modularisation is coming whether you like it or not > its called > > Bootstrap > > And the more modular the image will get the more will get closer to > namespaces anyway. So frankly all I have to do is wait and if I can of > course contribute ;) > > You can call it Bootstrap or the Pink Elephant for all I care, in the end > for me its about having multi layer system. That's all I care. > > But you wont get an argument from me the more about the fact that the more > we wait the harder will get but again, I am not a Bootstrap contributor so I > have no right to complain. I really admire those people :D > > Modularisation for personal project is super easy to do,if you do it from > the start that is, its the existing code that is a pain in the hat to > modularise when until fairly recently even colors were hard coded into the > IDE. > > On Fri, Oct 13, 2017 at 3:55 PM Esteban A. Maringolo <emaring...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> 2017-10-13 5:55 GMT-03:00 Norbert Hartl <norb...@hartl.name>: >> > >> >> Am 13.10.2017 um 10:24 schrieb stephan <step...@stack.nl>: >> >> >> >> On 13-10-17 09:55, Thierry Goubier wrote: >> >>> Because namespaces, by essence, come with serious issues. I won't take >> >>> someone seriously on namespaces until he can cite those faithfully. >> >> >> >> Let's start with the misconception that namespaces are about >> >> modularisation >> >> >> > +1 >> >> +1 to this as well. >> >> Having modularization is like having security, very hard to add them >> later if you didn't include it in the original design. >> >> I'm using VisualWorks these days, and I find its namespaces something >> more of a hassle than a real use. >> >> If we could name Classes with a dot, that could solve most of what >> namespaces are used for in practice: avoiding name colissions. >> That's why most of the popular frameworks have prefixes like Zn, WA, >> RB, and so on and so forth. But now I'm used to prefixes, I don't need >> them. :) >> >> Modularity is a different beast, if you look at how some modules work >> in JS, like AMD, you see that in practice they avoid collisions by >> importin what they need from a module, and assign it to a "namespace" >> (it is not, but works as such), so they get modules first, and >> namespacing later. >> >> Regards, >> >> Esteban. >> >
