Hi, <br><br>I just wanted to state something that I think most of all proponents of keeping etoys are missing. Sorry in advance if its not the case or this statement of mine sound a little harsh. (please blame my lack of a better english, and time to write it better)
<br><br>I kept reading and reading this thread and the other ones related to it, and everybody who asked to keep etoys on squeak-dev seemed to me that they were not aware that the currently etoy image isn't the current squeak-dev. If you want to use etoys you need to use the squeakland image.
<br><br>While its true that etoys works on 3.9, remember that the maintainance of etoys is done on the squeakland image (which is not even a squeak-dev 3.8 image, only one based on it)<br><br>So what I don't understand is why everybody insists on using etoys in squeak-dev
3.9, when the people behind etoys don't use, nor maintain, nor can make any kind of assurance about etoys in 3.9. <br><br>In fact I think its contraproducent to keep etoys in this setup. Because we risk that anyone wanting to use squeak because of etoys, they might have a bad etoy experience because they are using
3.9. I, on the other hand, would always direct all the people interested in etoys to an squeakland image instead. <br><br>Lastly I would like to ask Ron, Klaus, Jecel, Lex, Marcus, and the other people that on this thread said that wanted to keep etoys if they have considered this issue and I would like to know what they think. Again. Apologies if my mail didn't sound right. I am just curious and no offense was meant to anyone.
<br><br>Regards,<br>Hernán<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/31/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Ron Teitelbaum</b> <<a href="mailto:Ron@usmedrec.com">Ron@usmedrec.com</a>> wrote:</span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
All,<br><br>I stand by the suggestion of either replacing Morphic and Etoys with Tweak<br>and Tweaks EToy implementation, since there is significant work going into<br>both, or adding a script that removes eToys from the main image upon
<br>developer request. If a further development of Morphic is wanted and that<br>development requires the removal of eToys from the main image, I support<br>that also. In other words if we want Morphic 3.0 then the developer is
<br>required to unload eToys and then load Morphic 3.0 into their own image.<br><br>I do not support removing eToys from the main image without replacing it<br>with Tweak and the new OLPC eToys.<br><br>The reason for my position is that I support community bridges which I have
<br>discussed at length in previous postings.<br><br>My suggestion for 3.10 is to work towards consolidating current advancements<br>from all platforms, Tweak, eToys, Croquet and OLPC into Squeak's main image.<br>This follows the suggestion of finding work that is already completed and
<br>ready for inclusion into the main image.<br><br>A question for Juan, can your Morphic 3.0 advancements be applied to Tweak?<br><br>Ron Teitelbaum<br><br>> -----Original Message-----<br>> From: <a href="mailto:squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org">
squeak-dev-bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:squeak-dev-">squeak-dev-</a><br>> <a href="mailto:bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org">bounces@lists.squeakfoundation.org</a>] On Behalf Of <a href="mailto:goran@krampe.se">
goran@krampe.se</a><br>> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 3:03 AM<br>> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list<br>> Subject: I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you? (was Re: Removing<br>> Etoys,Morphic and other friends)
<br>><br>> Hi all!<br>><br>> Since it feels that we are getting more concrete here I decided to<br>> rename the subject. Perhaps people join up in the discussion again. :)<br>><br>> Juan Vuletich <
<a href="mailto:jvuletich@dc.uba.ar">jvuletich@dc.uba.ar</a>> wrote:<br>> > Hi Goran!<br>> ><br>> > <a href="mailto:goran@krampe.se">goran@krampe.se</a> escribió:<br>> > > Hi Juan and all!<br>
> > ><br>> > > I just want to say I am 100% with you on all this.<br>> > ><br>> > Thanks. It's nice to know that.<br>><br>> Though I am just one of "us" you know. :) But yes, it is nice to feel
<br>> that people agree - and as I said I am all with you for three major<br>> reasons:<br>><br>> 1. You are a doer. You have already proved that.<br>> 2. You are committed to this. We don't have many people committed to
<br>> Morphic development (on this low level) these days and I value each and<br>> every one highly.<br>> 3. You have a plan.<br>><br>> And my principle is that if someone is itching to improve something and
<br>> has the above 3 things, then there is not much to argue about - I say<br>> go. :)<br>><br>> > > Could you possibly (as you probably know Morphic/eToys better than<br>> most<br>> > > of us) list the parts that we could "decide" about leaving in or
<br>> ripping<br>> > > out? Lex started a list, but he also included some things that I had<br>> not<br>> > > thought were included (like ImageSegment for example).<br>> > ><br>> > To me eToys what you can find in the eToys package. That's why I put it
<br>> > there!<br>><br>> :)<br>><br>> > Going thru Lex's list. (Lex, I didn't answer to your post because I<br>> > think the list should be built by the community, and I didn't want to<br>> > sound authoritative on this!)
<br>> > - Tile based programming system. Yes. The central part of eToys.<br>> > - Halos. No. Halos are key to Morphic.<br>> > - Named morph search. No. I'd put this in 'MorphicExtras'.<br>> > - Uniclasses. Yes. They were implemented in Squeak to support eToys. And
<br>> > they are not Smalltalky to me. However, 'make own subclass' is not<br>> > eTtoys, and distinct from uniclasses to me.<br>> > - SmartRefStream and ImageSegments. No! Why would they?<br>> > - Projects and saving projects. No.
<br>> > - Paint tool. No.<br>> > - Flaps. No.<br>><br>> I think this list sounds perfect to me.<br>><br>> > Anyway, I don't want to say what should be removed and what should not.<br>> > But clearly in my reduced
3.7 image, I removed lots of stuff besides<br>> eToys.<br>> > Let me repeat: To me eToys what it is in the eToys package.<br>> > > I think it would be a nice way forward in this discussion.<br>> > >
<br>> > > regards, Göran<br>> > ><br>> > > PS. This subject came up around an OOPSLA hacking table with Dan<br>> present<br>> > > - he also remarked that Morphic is indeed quite small - if you
<br>> consider<br>> > > only Morphic itself.<br>> > :)<br>> > > But we did not discuss the issue at any great<br>> > > length. Also Doug applied your recipe to have a look at the result
<br>> etc.<br>> > ><br>> > Doug, I'd like to know what were your impressions on this!<br>> > > We never got around to any personal conclusions, though. But I for one<br>> > > applaud and greatly appreciate your diligence in this matter and I
<br>> think<br>> > > it would be GREAT to have a small "isolated" clean Morphic in Squeak<br>> > > that is maintained and proven. And I am probably not alone in that.<br>> > ><br>> > >
<br>> ><br>> > Well, I hope you're interested in my Morphic 3.0 project then. It is my<br>> > vision for morphic improvement. Check <a href="http://www.jvuletich.org">www.jvuletich.org</a> !<br>><br>> I am. Let me put this interest in some perspective btw:
<br>><br>> 1. Morphic is proven to work. But seems to be in a mess and thus is<br>> brittle and also not maintained much because people can't get a grip and<br>> are also appalled about lots of the stuff that is in there today (eToys
<br>> related I think). So it is sitting still today. Btw, this is MY primary<br>> objective behind getting eToys out - because I want a more attractive<br>> Morphic that then might get maintained instead of just sit there.
<br>><br>> 2. Tweak came along and people interested in these things probably<br>> decided to hang around and wait to see if Tweak would end up replacing<br>> Morphic in "official Squeak". Now it seems to not go that route, at
<br>> least not in a hurry. I love the fact that we have Tweak and new ideas<br>> etc, but perhaps it is time to grab what we have and make the best of it<br>> instead of waiting for Tweak.<br>><br>> So... Juan stepping up and offering his time to produce a clean,
<br>> maintainable and rejuvenated Morphic is IMHO Right On Cue.<br>><br>> I hope that people raise their voices and give him their support.<br>> I then hope that the next release team (3 people that we still do not
<br>> know who they are) considers giving Juan a slot in 3.10 for this<br>> rejuvenation, and I also hope that the board show their support in this.<br>> And I hope that Juan is willing to take on the Steward role for Morphic
<br>> together with a few more brave souls with an interest in Morphic (there<br>> are a few I think). I bet perhaps even Dan Ingalls could be interested,<br>> but he might be too busy at work.<br>><br>> > Cheers,
<br>> > Juan Vuletich<br>><br>> regards, Göran<br>><br><br><br><br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Saludos,<br>Hernán<br>