I don't support what Juan's proposal as stated. I'd like to hear why you, Juan or anyone else don't agree with what Jecel/Guy proposed<br><br>>if we can unload eToys but not load it back, then let's just include eToys in the
<br>>full image that we distribute and allow everyone the one way option of<br>>removing it.<br><br>which mirrors what I said in "Smalltalk Reloaded". More specifically, do folks supporting Juan's proposal disagree with my statement:
<br> <br>>All other considerations aside, if e-toys is unloaded from the main
distribution and cannot be easily reloaded by a new Squeaker,there will be confusion and for many disappointment and/or some other non-positive experience.<br><br>For me it's not that I'm opposed to a cleaner Morphic, I just don't want to add stumbling blocks for wider acceptance at a time when eToy images are getting more and more visibility. Sure it would be nice to see the default image with a cleaner Morphic but not at any price - especially since Spoon is coming. It's not clear to me whether the upside of a cleaner Morphic will be that great or long lasting because I believe we're in the early stages of a big paradigm shift in which
<a href="http://www.meshverse.com/2006/10/18/the-64-billion-dollar-question-reloaded/">Croquet UI</a>(oh where is Wicket?) is where the action is. In this new paradigm, I don't know whether a cleaner Morphic is going to have advantages over Tweak.
<br><br><br>Cheers,<br><br>Laurence<br><br><div><span class="gmail_quote">On 10/31/06, <b class="gmail_sendername"><a href="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org">email@example.com</a></b> <<a href="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org">email@example.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;">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:firstname.lastname@example.org">email@example.com</a>> wrote:<br>> Hi Goran!<br>><br>> <a href="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org">
email@example.com</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 most
<br>> > of us) list the parts that we could "decide" about leaving in or ripping<br>> > out? Lex started a list, but he also included some things that I had 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 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 present<br>> > - he also remarked that Morphic is indeed quite small - if you 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 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 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></blockquote></div><br>