Hello Jonathan,

2005/9/4, Jonathan Kelly <jonkelly at fastmail.fm>:
> Hi List,
... 
> I can back you up there. I've been looking at smalltalk for a new

Thanks!

...
> If there is no reason that I currently don't understand why squeak
> couldn't be pared back, I'm willing to give it a go, but I'll need
> pointers. I can't think of a better way to learn how it all fits
> together. I have some ideas from my research so far, but the the whole
> image thing, if not completely "black" box, is still quite dark grey!

>From what I can gather, it used to be possible to shrink the image,
but it is not clear to me whether you can still do it. However, I
believe the MorphicSplitters team's purpose is to modularize Morphic,
so that we can have an image with Morphic but no eToys an others.

In the meanwhile, you might want to try the shrink script from Boris
Gaertner. It works as advertised and you end up with an image whose
size is 1.7 M (and a 3.7M sources file), although on the end you
really have a very basic image. The script is at:

http://bgaertner.gmxhome.de/Shrink36.html

BTW, Boris Gaertner also has a very fine MVC tutorial:

http://bgaertner.gmxhome.de/MVCtutorial.htm 

Hope this helps!

Best Regards,

Victor Rodriguez.

> 
> If someone is willing to mentor me on what I need to know to try to
> clean up an image, I'm willing to learn, and put in the work, and to
> document the process somehow and give that back to the community. I'm
> sure that would make a good resourse for new comers to understand how it
> all fits together, and might attract more control freaks like me, if
> they knew how to get a tidy, manageable squeak image. :)
> 
> Please don't take this as any sort of criticism of squeak, or the people
> working on it; just the impressions of someone trying to learn
> smalltalk. I'm *very* excited by the promise of smalltalk, and I can see
> that Squeak is very "cool" (yes I am a geek). :)
> 
> While I'm in feedback mode, I will concur with the person who commented
> on the wiki being out of date: that is a definite discouragement to
> looking further. When the "where are we going" is 5 years old, one
> wonders where they got lost, or when they lost interest. I understand
> there is a new website on the go, so if attracting people to squeak is
> important, I'd say move that one up the list of priorities a bit.
> 
> Jonathan.
> 
>