I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you?
juan at jvuletich.org
Thu Nov 2 21:51:26 UTC 2006
Bill Schwab escribió:
> If you are truly creating an extension to morphic, perhaps you should
> change the name? Calling it morphic 3.0 gives the impression that you
> plan to replace 2.0.
What I'm doing is not an extension to morphic. It is a redesign. Please
read http://www.jvuletich.org/issues/Issue0002.htm .
> As for the pixel, I must disagree; the pixel will
> die when we have "vector driven" or some other kind of display that is
> not memory mapped. As long as there are discretely addressable
> elements, they should be available, even if there are better ways to
> draw. Imagine external interfacing w/o byte arrays and pointers.
> Granted, we try to hide the details behind abstractions, but sometimes
> we simply have to get our hands dirty.
> This thread has passed the point of my being able to follow it. I will
> continue to try to do so, but I know I am missing things.
Then we agree. I see pixels as bits in memory. We all know our computers
use them. But we can safely forget about them when we use our computers
(and program them).
More information about the Squeak-dev