<html><body>
<DIV>The discussion about this has been a bit confusing, but not too much. If what I understand is correct, that the plan is to have a "full" image of Squeak that contains Morphic/eToys, which will be removable, or a "full" image + an additional dev. image w/o eToys, with the idea that an upgrade to Morphic will be in the works for the future, it sounds like a good interim solution to me. I vote "yes". Hopefully someday eToys will be reworked as well.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>---Mark</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">-------------- Original message -------------- <BR>From: goran@krampe.se <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 <JVULETICH@DC.UBA.AR>wrote: <BR>> > Hi Goran! <BR>> > <BR>> > goran@krampe.se escribi󺊦lt;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, an
d 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>&g
t; > > I think it would be a nice way forward in this discussion. <BR>> > > <BR>> > > regards, G? <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>> &
gt; > <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 www.jvuletich.org ! <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, G? <BR>> </BLOCKQUOTE></body></html>