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
|