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

Laurence Rozier laurence.rozier at gmail.com
Tue Oct 31 11:51:21 UTC 2006

I don't support what Juan's proposal as stated. I'd like to hear why you,
Juan or anyone else don't agree with what Jecel/Guy proposed

>if we can unload eToys but not load it back, then let's just include eToys
in the
>full image that we distribute and allow everyone the one way option of
>removing it.

which mirrors what I said in "Smalltalk Reloaded". More specifically, do
folks supporting Juan's proposal disagree with my statement:

>All other considerations aside, if e-toys is unloaded from the main
distribution and cannot be easily reloaded by a new Squeaker,there will be
confusion and for many disappointment and/or some other non-positive

For me it's not that I'm opposed to a cleaner Morphic, I just don't want to
add stumbling blocks for wider acceptance at a time when eToy images are
getting more and more visibility. Sure it would be nice to see the default
image with a cleaner Morphic but not at any price - especially since Spoon
is coming. It's not clear to me whether the upside of a cleaner Morphic will
be that great or long lasting because I believe we're in the early stages of
a big paradigm shift in which Croquet
where is Wicket?) is where the action is. In this new paradigm, I don't know
whether a cleaner Morphic is going to have advantages over Tweak.



On 10/31/06, goran at krampe.se <goran at krampe.se> wrote:
> 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
> reasons:
> 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20061031/6720f4a5/attachment.htm

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list