Traits, OmniBrowser and ToolBuilder

stéphane ducasse ducasse at
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:
> list=packages&cmd=showmsg&msgnum=237
> 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 mailing list