Hi J J,

I don't know either.  For me Morphic IS EToys.  For others Morphic IS
toolBuilder.  For me Tweak is Croquet.  It appears that for others Tweak is
dead and too slow, (but that seems very short sighted since if Tweak IS
Croquet then there is major development going on which we could all benefit
from)

I asked the questions which no one wants to answer.  Can Tweak be
ToolBuilder?  How difficult would it be to redo the tools in Tweak?  Can we
integrate Tweak and will Andreas support it in Squeak?  Can we integrate
some of the Croquet functionality?  If EToys is too enmeshed with Morphic
and Tweak is clean shouldn't we adopt Tweak as a way of cleaning up (wasn't
that the whole goal of tweak?)  Can we leave both and transition to Tweak?

My only goal is community bridges and expanding the opportunities for people
to contribute and resources for people to use.  (I would also like to see
better wxSqueak support!)    

These are just questions not suggestions!  I guess it's safe to take the
flame proof suit off now?

Ron Teitelbaum


> From: J J
> Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 2:26 PM
> 
> Is the morphic concept a bad one, or is the implimentation just
> problematic
> at the moment?
> 
> I'm just asking, since you seem to be interested in ditching Morphic in
> favour of Tweek.  Or is this just an issue of; it's easier to just replace
> then fix?
> 
> I'm just curious, not taking a side.
> 
> 
> >From: "Ron Teitelbaum" <Ron at USMedRec.com>
> >Reply-To: Ron at USMedRec.com, The general-purpose Squeak developers
> >list<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> >To: "'The general-purpose Squeak developers
> >list'"<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> >Subject: Removing Morphic (was: Removing Etoys (was Re: A process
> >proposalfor 3.10))
> >Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:14:52 -0400
> >
> >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
> >the point.
> >
> >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)
> >
> >Ron Teitelbaum
> >
> >
> > > 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.
> > > Cheers,
> > > 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/
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get today's hot entertainment gossip
> http://movies.msn.com/movies/hotgossip?icid=T002MSN03A07001
> 
>