On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:59:55 +0300, Stéphane Rollandin  
<lecteur at zogotounga.net> wrote:

> as I see it, my problem with *your* proposal is that we need to dump  
> eToys in order to gain a cleaned-up Morphic.
>
> to me "code cleanup" does not mean that any functionality is lost. only  
> that the code is cleaned up. maybe I am too simple-minded :)

How to change the fundament of a building and in the same time to avoid  
removing of upper floors?

> so your proposal is to kill etoys, which currently work just fine and is  
> used by many people, for the only reason that it does not seem to be  
> easy to clean it up. we had "if it's not broken, don't fix it", now it  
> seems we have "if it's not broken but ugly, then just kill it".

To be honest I never had been an etoys user and probably should not jump  
in here. But anyway I wonder: if etoys are already working just fine right  
now (in efficiently forked image) why do they can not be detangled from  
the current squeak-dev image to allow it move forward?

> this is utter nonsense. I just don't understand where we are going here.  
>    why destroy Squeak ?

Another point of view is that blocking any change going to squeak may  
finally repell the majority of creative people from it and kill in a  
different way (by not allowing to create a future). I'm not want to be  
harsh (still not used to English unfortunately) but for me it if squeak  
should die - then let it die: people may move to other projects which are  
lacking support now (including Strongtalk).

> Stef

best regards,
	Danil