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.

Nicolas

> 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.
>
>