Another Morphic question

Michael Latta lattam at mac.com
Mon Dec 20 19:02:51 UTC 2004


On Dec 20, 2004, at 12:50 PM, karl.ramberg at chello.se wrote:

> Michael Latta <lattam at mac.com> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the pointer.  This brings up some things about Squeak I 
>> find
>> disturbing.
>>
>> 1) Why was the reference not in the class comments?  If you are going
>> to have external documentation, at least reference it from the source.
>
> True.
>
>> 2) The referenced page talks about this working in 2.9.  Has it been
>> touched since then?
>
> Not much, Dan Ingalls did some fixes a looong time ago.
>
>> 3) Should something this old really be part of the current release
>> without someone updating the docs, and possibly commenting the 
>> classes?
>
> It's part of a experiment and it's quite cool. But it's not maintained
> and there are quite a few bugs and quirks. The hard thing with pulling
> stuff like this out is that it's attached quite deep into the
> core of morphic.

Then I would suggest some comments to make it more clear what the 
status/intent is.  What is the process for submitting change sets?

>
>> There is so much "stuff" in Squeak that are examples, experiments, and
>> are not currently in use, it is very hard to identify the parts that
>> are really current or of interest.  Yet another vote for a small 
>> kernel
>> and then identified packages that can be loaded.
>>
> But Squeak is also like a old attic where you find you great
> grandfathers
> wooden leg and a map to treasure island :-)

While I understand that, it also inhibits use of Squeak for "real" 
work.  Trying to use Squeak for any production use would require those 
"experimental" bits be removed to reduce the complexity of the system 
being maintained.  Since anyone using Squeak for a product would need 
to test the system, and provide support, the richness of code lying 
around is a liability.

>
> Karl
>




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list