Traits, OmniBrowser and ToolBuilder
ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Fri Sep 9 19:14:51 UTC 2005
On 9 sept. 05, at 20:56, Andreas Raab wrote:
> stéphane ducasse wrote:
>> But andreas does it mean that we will be stuck forever with this
>> ugly browser.
> This is ridiculous statement and you know it.
uh? I was not clear enough apparently.
> You even participated in the discussion starting at:
> I did a practical demonstration that (with a little bit of work)
> you can unload all of the programming tools and swap in whatever
> you like best. So what was your point again?
I know it.
Why are you so aggressive?
The point of daniel was that we need to put pressure on OB so that it
turns to be an excellent browser framework.
He did not say that it should be in core micro whatever you call it
image. My point was that like you have vi under
unix to edit files when nothing else works, I was concerned that it
may be nice to have a small minimal browser (may be some
people are concerned by the size of OB and its complexity) instead of
having the old one that have the disadvantages not to be
great for extension and introducing new features or OB that seems
too large for me for minimal applications.
So you see I'm not black and white. I just that slowly we should
think about moving away from the old browser, but still
without losing the possibility to have some simple solutions.
I thought that this could be the same for the old compile, may be
some people will use it because they need to work
on really low memory space and in that case using the old compiler
will be an option for them. (note that I did not measure
the size of the two compilers).
More information about the Squeak-dev