I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you? (was Re: Removing Etoys, Morphic and other friends)

goran at krampe.se goran at krampe.se
Tue Oct 31 08:03:17 UTC 2006

Hi all!

Since it feels that we are getting more concrete here I decided to
rename the subject. Perhaps people join up in the discussion again. :)

Juan Vuletich <jvuletich at dc.uba.ar> wrote:
> Hi Goran!
> goran at krampe.se escribió:
> > Hi Juan and all!
> >
> > I just want to say I am 100% with you on all this.
> >   
> Thanks. It's nice to know that.

Though I am just one of "us" you know. :) But yes, it is nice to feel
that people agree - and as I said I am all with you for three major

1. You are a doer. You have already proved that.
2. You are committed to this. We don't have many people committed to
Morphic development (on this low level) these days and I value each and
every one highly.
3. You have a plan.

And my principle is that if someone is itching to improve something and
has the above 3 things, then there is not much to argue about - I say
go. :)

> > Could you possibly (as you probably know Morphic/eToys better than most
> > of us) list the parts that we could "decide" about leaving in or ripping
> > out? Lex started a list, but he also included some things that I had not
> > thought were included (like ImageSegment for example).
> >   
> To me eToys what you can find in the eToys package. That's why I put it 
> there!


> Going thru Lex's list. (Lex, I didn't answer to your post because I 
> think the list should be built by the community, and I didn't want to 
> sound authoritative on this!)
> - Tile based programming system. Yes. The central part of eToys.
> - Halos. No. Halos are key to Morphic.
> - Named morph search. No. I'd put this in 'MorphicExtras'.
> - Uniclasses. Yes. They were implemented in Squeak to support eToys. And 
> they are not Smalltalky to me. However, 'make own subclass' is not 
> eTtoys, and distinct from uniclasses to me.
> - SmartRefStream and ImageSegments. No! Why would they?
> - Projects and saving projects. No.
> - Paint tool. No.
> - Flaps. No.

I think this list sounds perfect to me.

> Anyway, I don't want to say what should be removed and what should not. 
> But clearly in my reduced 3.7 image, I removed lots of stuff besides eToys.
> Let me repeat: To me eToys what it is in the eToys package.
> > I think it would be a nice way forward in this discussion.
> >
> > regards, Göran
> >
> > PS. This subject came up around an OOPSLA hacking table with Dan present
> > - he also remarked that Morphic is indeed quite small - if you consider
> > only Morphic itself. 
> :)
> > But we did not discuss the issue at any great
> > length. Also Doug applied your recipe to have a look at the result etc.
> >   
> Doug, I'd like to know what were your impressions on this!
> > We never got around to any personal conclusions, though. But I for one
> > applaud and greatly appreciate your diligence in this matter and I think
> > it would be GREAT to have a small "isolated" clean Morphic in Squeak
> > that is maintained and proven. And I am probably not alone in that.
> >
> >   
> Well, I hope you're interested in my Morphic 3.0 project then. It is my 
> vision for morphic improvement. Check www.jvuletich.org !

I am. Let me put this interest in some perspective btw:

1. Morphic is proven to work. But seems to be in a mess and thus is
brittle and also not maintained much because people can't get a grip and
are also appalled about lots of the stuff that is in there today (eToys
related I think). So it is sitting still today. Btw, this is MY primary
objective behind getting eToys out - because I want a more attractive
Morphic that then might get maintained instead of just sit there.

2. Tweak came along and people interested in these things probably
decided to hang around and wait to see if Tweak would end up replacing
Morphic in "official Squeak". Now it seems to not go that route, at
least not in a hurry. I love the fact that we have Tweak and new ideas
etc, but perhaps it is time to grab what we have and make the best of it
instead of waiting for Tweak.

So... Juan stepping up and offering his time to produce a clean,
maintainable and rejuvenated Morphic is IMHO Right On Cue.

I hope that people raise their voices and give him their support.
I then hope that the next release team (3 people that we still do not
know who they are) considers giving Juan a slot in 3.10 for this
rejuvenation, and I also hope that the board show their support in this.
And I hope that Juan is willing to take on the Steward role for Morphic
together with a few more brave souls with an interest in Morphic (there
are a few I think). I bet perhaps even Dan Ingalls could be interested,
but he might be too busy at work.

> Cheers,
> Juan Vuletich

regards, Göran

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list