Removing Morphic (was: Removing Etoys (was Re: A process proposal
Ron at USMedRec.com
Thu Oct 19 01:14:52 UTC 2006
These are good reasons to remove eToys, if the removal of the application
lends to nominal improvements in Morphic. If the goal is to clean up and
re-factor without a goal to improve Morphic, I would still vote against it.
I disagree with Squeak should not include applications, but I won't argue
What is the community's feeling about removing Morphic and replacing it with
Tweak so that squeak can run both Tweak, Croquet, and can be a platform for
new versions hopefully better packaged eToys? We need to be thinking about
folding in and adopting both the private and research functionality that is
currently being developed. How difficult would it be to modify current
toolBuilder tools to use Tweak instead? Would Andreas even agree that this
is a good idea and agree to maintain Tweak in Squeak? What is the
possibility that if we adopt Tweak that current Croquet development could
also be folded in?
(Putting on my flame proof suit)
> From: jvuletich at dc.uba.ar
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 9:56 AM
> 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
> http://www.jvuletich.org/Squeak/EToysFreeMorphic/EtoysFreeMorphic.html and
> 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.
> Juan Vuletich
> > This ignores the reasons that Juan wants to remove EToys in the first
> > place.
> > Juan, I'm sure I've read these reasons elsewhere, but could you
> > please repeat them for the benefit of this thread?
> > Thanks,
> > Josh
> > 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
> >> course.
> >> That's why I'm asking the Board to decide, or advice.
> >> Cheers,
> >> 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
> >> http://www.objectsroot.com/
More information about the Squeak-dev