[squeak-dev] Re: Regarding Polymorph

Igor Stasenko siguctua at gmail.com
Sat Mar 13 09:08:43 UTC 2010

On 13 March 2010 10:47, Andreas Raab <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> On 3/13/2010 12:25 AM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>> Like Tweak? I don't wanna get into a details, why Tweak failed to
>> replace Morphic in Squeak,
> I'd be kinda curious what you think about that. My opinion is pretty clear:
> I never *wanted* Tweak to be a replacement for Morphic. It wasn't ready; it
> was a playground for lots of new ideas.

It was just an example, of how far you should go, to be at least as
rich in features as Morphic.
It is much bigger investment than modifying existing code. And still
you have big chances that
it won't replace Morphic as a framework of choice for developers.
So, it is much more risk, comparing to the risk of changing Morphic
even if it breaks some 'cool' years old stuff.

If that's not true, then there should be already dozens of different
frameworks ready for use in Squeak :)

>> but i think this is what any brand new framework have to meet: compete
>> with Morphic and die :)
> You think so? Hm ... well maybe I should finally put a little release
> together. I think a decent Morphic competition is best done by being
> antithetical to Morphic. I'll see if I can find some time to polish things
> up a bit.
Not sure i understood what is 'being antithetical to Morphic' means.
I think that in Squeak situation, it is better to keep improving what
we already have, instead of
making a new framework.
But this is exactly what Nicolas says that its highly unlikely to happen.

> Cheers,
>  - Andreas

Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list