At 12:11 PM 4/30/00 -0400, Andrew C. Greenberg wrote:
At 01:39 PM 4/29/00 +0200, Stefan Matthias Aust wrote:
At 15:56 27.04.00 -0500, R. A. Harmon wrote:
I would suspect not as MVC is slated to be removed from Squeak Central release. I'm not sure when.
I'm not sure whether this statement is correct. Actually, I think, it's wrong. AFAIK, the default desktop is probably changed from MVC to morphic but there're no plans to remove MVC.
The last time this question came up a couple of months ago I went back and found Dan Ingalls's original post on the future of Squeak and confirmed that he said MVC was being removed. I think I posted an excerpt of it.
Unless I missed something since the last discussion, I guess that is still the plan.
I'm also pretty sure that this wouldn't be easy as it's deeply burried in all parts of Squeak - including Morphic :-)
If I remember correctly, during the last discussion Dan explained (something like) that the MVC event mechanism would remain but they still planned to remove the MVC GUI framework. Sorry, I can't give a better explanation.
He said anyone could then add the MVC GUI framework to the Squeak Central release, if they wanted it.
I see it as Stefan describes. I see no indication of an MVC extraction.
While this rumor of an MVC extraction seems to continue unabated, cycling roughly monthly in posts by Mr. Harmon, I don't see any evidence of it. I certainly didn't see any of it in my e-mail archives I reviewed.
Dan certainly did state that Morphic was going to be the primary GUI for SqC, and would be the default in the SqC release, probably beginning with 2.8. Beyond that, Mr. Harmon's conclusion seems to be wild extrapolation of other remarks.
The comments found in recent changesets continue to indicate concern about changes being properly supported in or backpatched to MVC, and changesets with updates and upgrades continue to be posted. A fair amount of third-party Smalltalk code relies on MVC (or is more easily ported to MVC), and thus MVC is a useful tool for compatibility.
As much Smalltalking as I've done, I still don't understand GUI stuff, including MVC, as well as I'd like. My paraphrasing of Squeak Central's plans for MVC was correspondingly lacking. Poor recall and writing skill didn't help either.
Since I am apparently unable to give a short -- and especially an accurate -- description of Squeak Central's plan for MVC, I'll refrain from the attempt.
Sorry, I'll try to better in the future.
Dan Ingall's clarification at http://macos.tuwien.ac.at:9009/757366513.asHtml
MVC is Dead? - Dan Ingalls
Title MVC is Dead? Author Dan Ingalls
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 10:16:43 -0800 From: Dan Ingalls Dan.Ingalls@disney.com Subject: Re: MVC is Dead?
[A clarification -- when we at Squeak Central (SqC) refer to "MVC", we are= usually referring to the "old ST-80 viewing structures" and their control= regime (View/Ctlr, SSView/Ctlr, and ControlManager). We consider the= model/dependents architecture and change/update protocols to be of enduring= value in Squeak as in MVC].
At 09:34 PM 2/1/00 -0600, Les Tyrrell wrote:
If the support is there to power Morphic, I'd think that the support will always be in place to resurrect MVC, should it be dropped from the baseline.
[snip]
"R. A. Harmon" harmonra@webname.com replied...
I don't share your optimism on this point. I think it would slowly become =
a
dead path. Less bugs would get fixed, less enhancements get added, less people use it, so less bugs would get fixed, less enhancements get added, less people use it, . . . . It appears to me that additional "widget?" are added to morphic but not in a way that they can be used in MVC--I'm not familiar enough with morphic to tell for sure.
This is already the case -- MVC is currently maintained for backward= compatibility (with documentation, etc) -- it is not the site of most= enhancements and of Squeak's general forward motion (animation, 3D, music= and sound support, etc).
I think this is a route that will diminish Squeaks accessibility to folks new to Smalltalk as most books on Smalltalk and code freely available (othe=
r
dialects) don't use morphic. Trying to translate MVC to morphic adds a level of complexity to learning from the books and code. This is enough to dissuade someone from getting over the OOP-think hump.
This is why we have kept MVC so far. That familiarity and compatibility= with other STs is a valuable component in the overall synergy.
Regarding the OOP-think hump, we at SqC consider NEITHER Morphic nor MVC to= be adequate. We still feel that an entirely new approach is needed here --= along the lines of Morphic viewers somehow integrated with a real inspector= /browser/debugger, with maybe a few things borrowed from Fabrik and Morphic= Wrappers. Wish us luck (or beat us to it!).
I think the newbies and tools are both useful in getting to the next plane.
Absolutely.
We do not plan to decommission (excise from the release) MVC until the time= when nearly everyone who uses Squeak does so as an environment unto itself,= not as a free alternative to other similar Smalltalks where MVC= compatibility is important. We feel that this could happen within the= current year (but we had the same feeling a year ago ;-). Whenever the= time comes, we will produce a "Last Picture Show" image that is the= cleanest and most complete MVC-based image possible, so that it can be used= and maintained indefinitely by motivated MVC survivalists.
Isn't Morphic about due for the long-awaited refactoring?
Yes, indeed. This is another nice thing about retaining MVC for a while. = It gives us a place to stand when making major changes to Morphic.
- Dan
Created by the Squeak Mail Archiver on 1 May 2000 at 3:44:24 pm. -- Richard A. Harmon "The only good zombie is a dead zombie" harmonra@webname.com E. G. McCarthy Spencer, Iowa
squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org