Removing Etoys (was Re: A process proposal for 3.10)
jvuletich at dc.uba.ar
jvuletich at dc.uba.ar
Wed Oct 18 13:55:31 UTC 2006
The ones I can think of right now are:
1) Squeak should not include applications. And eToys, (for a Smalltalk
programmer) is an application.
2) eToys code is everywhere in the system, not only in eToys classes.
3) the impact of eToys in Morphic is terrible. Just download my image from
browse a bit Morph or any core Morphic classes. Then compare with 3.9.
4) Cleaning (or refactoring or redesigning) Morphic is almost impossible
with eToys around.
5) eToys is not being maintained. People who use it, actually use other
Squeak distributions, like Squeakland and SmallLand.
I'm sure there are others.
> This ignores the reasons that Juan wants to remove EToys in the first
> Juan, I'm sure I've read these reasons elsewhere, but could you
> please repeat them for the benefit of this thread?
> On Oct 18, 2006, at 9:03 AM, Giovanni Giorgi wrote:
>> As I have understood, there is a new eToy implementation in
>> progress inside Tweak.
>> We can wait until this implementation is a bit stable.
>> When this will be true, the other part depending from eToy1 will be
>> able to migrate to eToy2.
>> After that we can start to deliver an official squeak distribution
>> with eToy2 and eToy1 side by side.
>> Then after w ahile we can start to evict eToy1.
>> This will save some efforts, at cost of a bit larger image (but
>> avoiding some hours of work can be a good exchange ;)
>> On 10/18/06, jvuletich at dc.uba.ar <jvuletich at dc.uba.ar> wrote: Of
>> That's why I'm asking the Board to decide, or advice.
>> Juan Vuletich
>> > As Juan wrote, removing Etoys from Morphic while keeping it both
>> > loadable and functioning properly is futile.
>> > So either you leave it in, or you consciously give up compatibility
>> > with anyone using Etoys now, like the squeakland distribution, OLPC
>> > distribution, Smalland, the Spanish LinEx version, the Japanese
>> > Nihongo version etc. Already synchronizing Squeakland and 3.8 was
>> > hard, nobody has tried yet for 3.9, but this would make it outright
>> > impossible.
>> > I'm *not* saying you should not do this, but please be aware of the
>> > possible consequences.
>> "Just Design It" -- GG
>> Software Architect
More information about the Squeak-dev