jason.johnson.081 at gmail.com
Sun Sep 9 16:07:47 UTC 2007
Just to clarify what I meant: It just seems to me that Morphic is
quite complex. If this complexity isn't buying us something special
that no other system has then I think we should consider dropping it
(or fix it if it's fixable).
On 9/9/07, Jason Johnson <jason.johnson.081 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/9/07, Bill Schwab <BSchwab at anest.ufl.edu> wrote:
> > Jason,
> > I respectfully submit that you are indeed off base :)
> I can accept that, I'm by no means an export. But where am I off
> base? If I can't find that out I can't correct my misconceptions.
> What I read in your argument was basically "Morphic is what we have".
> That is valid, but if we are considering making the definitive UI for
> Squeak I think we need to get off to the right foot, or at least know
> what it is.
> Your point about wanting a builder is certainly valid, but we can have
> that for any View framework we build. If Morphic isn't a fit lets at
> least plan to drop it for something that is. I appreciate someone put
> a lot of work in coming up with Morphic and people have put in effort
> bringing it to Squeak, but the point of experimenting is to be able to
> say "well, it didn't work".
> And I also agree about Tweak.
> Oh, and I'm up for doing what I can to build MVP from the ground up.
> I think it's the right thing to do.
More information about the UI