Re-doing Morphic ( Was: Re: Traits prototype image )

Brent Vukmer bvukmer at
Thu Feb 6 14:54:53 UTC 2003

Let's say a team of people ( or one really energetic person ) reworks Morphic to make it simpler, easier to understand, and perhaps faster.  They announce "SonOfMorphic 1.0" to the list and put it on SqueakMap.  How many current Morphic app developers would put in the work to move their app to SonOfMorphic?  How many Project authors would re-do their Projects using SonOfMorphic?  Let's say half of the current authors/developers do so.  Wouldn't that split the efforts of the Squeak community?

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Joyce [mailto:daniel.a.joyce at]
Sent: Wednesday, February 05, 2003 8:33 PM
To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
Subject: Re: Traits prototype image

On Wednesday 05 February 2003 01:09 am, Noury Bouraqadi wrote:
> Hi,
> I totally agree with you Stephane. I faced the same problems when
> making MetaclassTalk. The classbuilder is not clean at all. And in
> many kernel classes, one can find methods with hundreds of lines and
> hardwirings. This make any experiments with core Squeak classes
> heavy...
> Note: My intent is not to blame people who wrote the code, but to
> make Squeak become better...
> Noury

Nevermind Morphic, which just seems to keep bloating and bloating.

Anyone up for redoing it?

Wasn't that a project a while ago? To redo morphic? Everyone talks about 
design patterns, and refactoring, but no one ever seems to do it in 


Squeak is good, but I find the cruft really gets in the way of a lot of 
things. I've started using PHP lately, and I really like it for webpage 
scripting. It's clean, it works, and it's fast for a scripting host. 
Plus conceptually, it's very smalltalky in it's object behaviour.

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list