[Pharo-project] A radical proposal (to cut down dead code)

Eliot Miranda eliot.miranda at gmail.com
Tue May 31 04:27:50 CEST 2011

On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 6:50 PM, Craig Latta <craig at netjam.org> wrote:

> > [It's] impossible to authoritatively classify anything as "dead
> > code" unless there's a reference standard of what's core and what's
> > not core...
>     Yeah, in the meantime I define "dead" as "not run for some amount
> of time".

Surely "dead" means not used in the transitive closure of useful packages.
 I don't see anyone in this thread proposing to trawl Monticello
repositories looking for the latest versions of packages and then analysing
what messages these packages send.  IMO, only by doing this will you be able
to define what's used in the image.  One could try and relate the messages
used to the publish date of packages to try and get some idea of the
up-to-date-ness of messages.  One can perhaps attempt to make some
determination of the liveness of the package by asking the community (basing
this on e.g. last time it was downloaded creates the heisenbug of package
trawling needing to download packages.

Am I mad or is the set of packages out there in Monitcello repositories and
on SqueakMap what really constitutes the working set that the base image
needs to support?


> -C
> --
> Craig Latta
> www.netjam.org/resume
> +31 06 2757 7177
> + 1 415 287 3547
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/pipermail/pharo-project/attachments/20110530/3bf52adf/attachment.htm>

More information about the Pharo-project mailing list