Re: byte based quota

• Date: Mon, 30 Oct 1995 15:09:29 PST
• From:
  sgarfink@dept.english.upenn.edu (Susan Garfinkel)
• Cc: moo-cows@parc.xerox.com
• Content-Length: 915
• Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
• Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
• In-Reply-To: <9510301816.AA03034@tom.eng.mvision.com> from "Tom Ritchford" at Oct 30, 95 10:16:48 am

perhaps i'm in the minority, but i prefer the object based quota for a new
moo, especially if the switchover is easy. my reasoning is that we want to
encourage people to make full use of the potential of an object-oriented
environment, and one object that's fully described (@chparented, messages
customized, etc.) and does some neat stuff (people have a reason to learn
programming) is better than 10 objects that we all affectionately refer to
as "tiny scenery". you know, if it doesn't do anything, it doesn't need 
to be a separate object... i guess it depends on your goals for the moo, 
if you want to encourage rich texture or if anything goes as long as it 
doesn't get too big. perhaps the ideal solution is to put a cap on both 
number of objects, and total byte size.

if you do switch the default in a next release, please be sure to leave 
object-based quota as an option for those who want it.

sg.

• Re: byte based quota
• From: Colin Verne <colin@j300111162.resnet.cornell.edu>

• Re: byte based quota
• From: tom@mvision.com (Tom Ritchford)

• Prev: Re: byte based quota
• Next: Re: byte based quota
• Index: MOO-cows
• Thread: MOO-cows