A process proposal for 3.10

Marcus Denker denker at iam.unibe.ch
Tue Oct 17 22:44:11 UTC 2006

On 17.10.2006, at 16:55, Lex Spoon wrote:

> Giovanni Corriga <giovanni at corriga.net> writes:
>> The problem with things like Etoys is that they're highly coupled  
>> with
>> the rest of the system, and part of the system depend on it. For
>> example, trying to remove Etoys triggers an emergency evaluator in
>> Squeak 3.9RC2. As I see it, if we want to remove Etoys (and either  
>> let
>> it rot in absence of a mantainer or turn it into an installable
>> package), those couplings would become bugs for the other package
>> mantainers.
> I agree with most of the thread.  Let me toss in, though, I am not
> convinced that EToys being intertwined is necessarily a terrible
> thing.  EToys is a lot of what makes Squeak, Squeak.
> You cannot unload the processes module from the Linux kernel.  This is
> not a bad thing, because processes are part of what makes Linux,  
> Linux.
> Also, keep in mind that all the Squeakland people are vitally
> interested in EToys.  There are ETosy-based text books, for goodness'
> sakes.
> I do agree that at least one steward for EToys needs to be identified,
> if there is not one already.  Try probing on the Squeakland mailing
> list, if nothing else.

The SqueakLand people don't use 3.9, and I am quite sure they never  

Etoys 1 is past live-cycle. There is 3.8/OLPC which is a cool Etoys
image for eToys1.

For the future, there needs to be a new eToys2 that is maintainable.
There is a very cool demo of a next-gen eToys based on Tweak.
That seems, to me, much more the thing to take a look at for the future
eToy system.


More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list