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

cg at cg at
Mon Feb 10 13:42:27 UTC 2003

Andreas Raab <squeak-dev at> said:
>To me, this is the logical result of many of the shortcomings of Smalltalk.
>For example, subclassing for using the framework. 
Ok, these are the shortcomings. You suggest that 'more like Etoys' would
be a solution, but could you be a bit more concrete? If subclassing is
bad (agreed on many counts), is composition a la Traits better?

>[...]. Of
>course, such an environment would no longer be "Smalltalk" - but in order to
>protect the critical system notions we simply HAVE to get rid of it or at
>least some of its intrinsically dangerous notions when it comes to an open,
>easily usable, and still robust environment.
a) define "Smalltalk", b) modify the definition until it matches the
system you get after you fix its shortcomings, c) continue calling it

IMHO, "Smalltalk" is more a philosophy than a product (Smalltalk-80) or
a standards document (ANSI Smalltalk), so I see no problems in fixing
Squeak here...

Cees de Groot          <cg at>
GnuPG 1024D/E0989E8B 0016 F679 F38D 5946 4ECD  1986 F303 937F E098 9E8B
Cogito ergo evigilo

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list