[squeak-dev] Regarding Polymorph

Nicolas Cellier nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com
Sat Mar 13 08:06:14 UTC 2010

2010/3/13 Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com>:
> Guys, your points taken.
> This project, as well as many others are victims of monolithic design.
> Morphic is monolithic. And Polymorph, placed on top if it, inevitably
> inherits a worst
> from its base - a monolithic design :(
> Also, Pharo cut out many etoys-only stuff from Morphic,
> while Squeak proclaimed to keep etoys in place (until better times ;)
> GUI, as well as many other parts of system needs systematical approach
> - maintenance,
> support and improvement on a regular basis.
> Being a member of community for last 4 years i din't observed anything
> like that related to Morphic.

Hey, it's far more involving than changing just Collections...
The code base is large, tricky, and every change potentially break
tools and put another image in you garbage bin.
Plus, it's a huge work (See VW recent failure to replace wrappers).
But the major risk is breaking every "cool" morphic project, and thus
see your changes rejected by community.
The only way I see is starting a parallel implementation from scratch
(not Scratch the software ;).
And I think Pharo would be a better place to experiment more radical
changes, because not tied to the past.


> Loading Polymorph into Squeak will not change things. We will just add
> another unmaintained project on top
> of already unmaintaned one, unless, of course, Gary will volunteer to
> become a Morphic maintainer in both Pharo and Squeak forks.
> Which i doubt, because he didn't wanted to do it, when i proposed it
> last time few years ago.
> --
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list