> Dan said...


> >Lex said...
>>>Keep in mind that we have multiple projects using Squeak.  For some, MVC
>>>is fine.  For myself, MVC is attrocious and Morphic is a massive
>>>improvement.  (regarding speed, load a 3.0 image sometime and see how
>>>fast morphic *can* go....)  And for others--perhaps the *majority* of
>>>Squeak users -- EToys is where it is at.  A Squeak without EToys is a no
>>>go for the general population.  At best, such a Squeak is a fork.
>
> Juan replied...
>>I perfectly understand this. I just believe "standard", "basic", "minimal"
>>or whatever should not include eToys. And probably not even Morphic.
>>All these should be loadable packages. Of course, pre-made distros with
>>eToys or whatever a set of users want would be good. But made by loading
>>optional packages form a suitable Universe to the small main standard 
>>image.
>
> An alternative to including MVC, as the sort of minimal support, is to 
> include a *basic* morphic package -- the kind of lean version that John 
> Maloney always used for his tutorials.  It doesn't take a lot more than 
> this (or it didn't back when I wrote them, heh, heh) to support all the 
> normal system windows, and thus the development environment.
>
> I don't think it's much more code than the MVC framework.
>
> It could (with a bit of attention) be a nice intro to Morphic.
>
> It would let us finally package and remove the ST80 classes.
>
> It would mean that the move from "minimal" up would not be a change
> of metaphor, but just stuff added.
>
> For that reason it would also be more likely that one could port
> a morphic app back down to minimal if needed.
>
> and for *that* reason, it might even encourage usage of simpler Morph 
> protocols.
>
> Just my 2 cents
>
> - Dan
>
>
Yes!!!
Thanks Dan!
Juan