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

Ron Teitelbaum Ron at USMedRec.com
Tue Oct 31 15:28:10 UTC 2006


I stand by the suggestion of either replacing Morphic and Etoys with Tweak
and Tweaks EToy implementation, since there is significant work going into
both, or adding a script that removes eToys from the main image upon
developer request.  If a further development of Morphic is wanted and that
development requires the removal of eToys from the main image, I support
that also.  In other words if we want Morphic 3.0 then the developer is
required to unload eToys and then load Morphic 3.0 into their own image.

I do not support removing eToys from the main image without replacing it
with Tweak and the new OLPC eToys.  

The reason for my position is that I support community bridges which I have
discussed at length in previous postings.

My suggestion for 3.10 is to work towards consolidating current advancements
from all platforms, Tweak, eToys, Croquet and OLPC into Squeak's main image.
This follows the suggestion of finding work that is already completed and
ready for inclusion into the main image.

A question for Juan, can your Morphic 3.0 advancements be applied to Tweak?

Ron Teitelbaum

> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-
> bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of goran at krampe.se
> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 3:03 AM
> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> Subject: I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you? (was Re: Removing
> Etoys,Morphic and other friends)
> 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

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list