[squeak-dev] Regarding Polymorph
ron.spengler at gmail.com
Sat Mar 13 08:34:54 UTC 2010
Er... I don't think there's anything intrinsic to Morphic which makes
skinning hard. It's the patchwork architecture of the tools that needs
help. Toolbuilderize everything and include support in toolbuilder for
skinning, and I imagine that at least a large part of Polymorph
becomes unnecessary. I need to spend some time digging into
toolbuilder to confirm this hunch; it's on my TODO list.
On Sat, Mar 13, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Igor Stasenko <siguctua at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 March 2010 10:06, Nicolas Cellier
> <nicolas.cellier.aka.nice at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 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.
> True. So, let us then stop any development and use Squeak 1.0 image,
> since its "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.
> Still, it doesn't makes my point less relevant: as any part of system
> it should be maintained and improved , otherwise it is
> doomed to rot and die.
>> The only way I see is starting a parallel implementation from scratch
>> (not Scratch the software ;).
> Like Tweak? I don't wanna get into a details, why Tweak failed to
> replace Morphic in Squeak,
> but i think this is what any brand new framework have to meet: compete
> with Morphic and die :)
>> And I think Pharo would be a better place to experiment more radical
>> changes, because not tied to the past.
> So, the only conclusion i can draw from above is: if you want to see
> any improvement in Morphic, go Pharo.
> It is ok, as for me. But not for Squeak, i guess, because it doesn't
> helping it in any way.
> Best regards,
> Igor Stasenko AKA sig.
More information about the Squeak-dev