Refactoring of Morphic (was RE: MVC vs. Morphic (was Re: Shrinking))

Douglas Rollwitz colorow at sbcglobal.net
Wed Sep 1 03:22:40 UTC 2004


I am doing some refactoring of Morph, and will be
posting a changeset soon.  It is not a comprehensive
refactoring, but it does move about 80 methods out of
Morph, and every little bit helps.  I don't see
anything wrong with chipping away at Morph.

Doug



--- SmallSqueak <smallsqueak at rogers.com> wrote:

>  
> Hi Ned,
> 
> 	 
> [SNIP]
> 
> > 
> > However, I'm not sure that a wholesale refactoring
> of Morphic 
> > would be worth the time at this point, as there
> are a couple 
> > of important new UI systems in the works (Tweak
> and Croquet), 
> >
> 
> 	IMHO, the factoring should have done before Croquet
> 
> 	and Tweak and Scratch were created. 
> 
> 	It should have been done when there was talk about 
> 	folding Stable Squeak into main stream Squeak.
> 	(How much time and efforts wasted in Stable Squeak
> ?)
> 
> 	It should have been done when Henrik module system
> 	was incorporated into main stream Squeak.
> 	(How much time and efforts was wasted)
> 
> "A More Inclusive Community-Based Model for Squeak
> Development"
> http://bike-nomad.com/squeak/community2.html
> 
> "Please note that I have tried not to talk about
> technical 
> solutions to problems. I don't think that the
> problems 
> we're having are primarily because of a lack of
> appropriate 
> tools or system design. 
> 
> Rather, I think that we have ignored a number of
> important 
> social factors in the design of the community"
> 
> 	IMHO, the problems are not only technical and
> social, 
> 	but also psychological and "political".
> 
> 	It may be a bit late now but it is still better
> than
> 	never.	
> 
> >	
> > and I also think that the desire for a cleaner,
> more 
> > "standard" user interface that includes the
> elements that 
> > people are used to is not necessarily best met by
> Morphic.
> >
>  
> 	You might want to review this opinion after Morphic
> 	is factored, if that ever happens.
> 
> >
> > As you know, there's lots of stuff in Morphic (and
> Squeak in 
> > general) that is a result of its focus on being
> the platform 
> > for EToys. I think that much of the current
> complexity of 
> > Morphic is due to design decisions (made under
> time pressure, 
> > of course) from EToys (and Alan's various demos)
> creeping 
> > into what started out as a much simpler system.
> > 
> 	How "eloquently" said !
> 
> 	This is understandable. After all, Apple and Disney
> were
> 	incorporated for profit and Alan has his own
> agenda.
> 
> 	After SqC let go of Disney, there was no more 
> 	time pressure and was the focus still on eToys ?
> 
> 	Why Croquet while eToys/Morphic is still a mess ?
> 
> 	Why Croquet while cheering the modularizing efforts
> ? 
> 
> 	Why adding more storeys on top of a shaking
> foundation ?
> 
> 	Why not factoring Morphic ?
> 
> 	Why not removing the dead bodies rotten inside
> Squeak ?
> 
> 	Was Squeak/Morphic a success ?
> 
> 	Maybe yes, a catastrophic success !
> 
> 	Why the heck I am sitting here and 
> 	typing these silly words !
> 
> [SNIP]
>  
> 
> 
> 




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list