[Morphic] Re: Implementing stuff in morphic 3.

[Juan Vuletich]

Hi Jerome,

I apologize for the delay. My second daugher, Diana was born on 6/28, 
and I'm slowly coming back.

Jerome Peace escribió:
> The size of the image is secondary. The size that
> matters is the peak size the application requires as
> it runs. With graphic intensive things you can hit the
> ceiling by requiring too much memory for just the
> intermediate forms. 
>   
Setting Display depth to 16 (instead of 32) reduces memory usage 
significantly. I should study Form allocation, to see if there's 
something to optimize, though.
> The other showstoppers for me are trying to use the
> halos in ways I "know" work and running into the fact
> they haven't been implemented for your morphs.
>
> And drag and drop doesn't work. So I can't figure out
> how to embed one morph in another.  
>
>   
Yes, those still missing. I do it all with code. Quite easy, anyway.
> You are familiar with what you wrote in a way that I
> am not. I am more or less poking at things from the
> outside. And I lose interest after about finding 5-9
> (seven plus or minus two)  things that don't work.
>
> Then its a matter of waiting until you make progress.
>
>   
That's ok.
> I know you are serious about this. So I would
> encourage you to get an official enough status for
> this that we can have a catagory for it on mantis**.
> The I can turn may annoyances with the way things work
> into bug reports. Which will help ratchet progress and
> may even help document the ideas and issues we come
> across as you develop your baby.
>
>
>   
Ok. I agree.
>> I have
>> modified lots of 
>> things in "old" Morphic, and it will not be that
>> easy.
>>     
>
> Like what?
>
>
>   
I didn't log all I did. But if you browse OldMorph, OldMorphExtension, 
and OldPasteUpMorph, you'll see I removed many instance variables. I 
also removed a lot of methods, and modified their senders. As new Morphs 
live in an old World, to avoid needing methods in Morph that I didn't 
want, I removed their senders. Basically, I feel free to delete whatever 
I don't like, anywhere in the system.
>   
>> They would need to convince
>> me that I was wrong, 
>> and to show me a better way, for me to follow them.
>> After all this is 
>> exactly what Dan Ingalls always did.
>>     
>
> Dan had the benifit of a nacent system and a paycheck.
>
>   
:)
>> And at the end he was always right.
>>     
>
> He didn't really get to the end. He went back to take
> care of the family farm and the team he had assembled
> broke up. See the references in Berts comment on
> fabrik.
>  
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2007-June/118049.html
>   
Ok, but what I meant is that he did Smalltalk the way he felt, without 
worrying if others would understand him or not. And I really believe 
nothing better than Smalltalk was made. I.e. I believe Smalltalk is 
better than C++, C#, Java, Python, Ruby, Self, etc.
> -----
>
> In conclusion,
>
> I will support you as much as I can from the outside
> by playing with things as you improve them. I am not
> too interested in diving into your separate morphic
> 3.0 code. 
>
> If you get a catagory for Morphic 3.0 set up on Mantis
> I will write bug reports as I come across them. I very
> much recommend this approach.
>
> I am entertaining my curiosity by coding the
> place/morph layers concept in the current development
> stream of squeak. I am going to do what is practical
> to do but I am keeping in mind your concept of each
> morph having its own coord system. So if you look over
> my work and I yours we should benifit from each others
> insights.
>
>
> Yours in curiosity and service, --Jerome Peace
>
>
> --------
>
> **This should probably be a catgory under the squeak
> project rather than its own separate project. That is
> due to limitations of mantis in dealling amoung
> projects. Ken Causey may be able to provide some
> advice.  _Jer
>
>   
Great!
Thanks,
Juan Vuletich