Hi Igor.

My hands are full enough with (paying) work and Polymorph maintenance... 
Morphic itself is hugely more work!

Were I to do things again it would likely be from scratch with a nice, clean 
design, as you know. Of course, gaining
any acceptance of a new UI framework would be next to impossible, not to 
mention leaving existing applications out in the cold.
That's why Polymorph has been complicated... backwards compatability!

Now, if everything had used ToolBuilder there would be a chance, although 
too limiting for all the fun stuff that has been done using Morphic across 
the years...

Regards, Gary


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Igor Stasenko" <siguctua at gmail.com>
To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list" 
<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Saturday, March 13, 2010 2:23 AM
Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Regarding Polymorph


> 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.
>
> 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.
>