Difference between Morphs and bad programming

Ned Konz ned at bike-nomad.com
Tue Mar 27 23:40:34 UTC 2001


(I hit control-Enter accidentally before I was finished)...

On Tuesday 27 March 2001 12:28, Ross Boylan wrote:

> Or are morphs
> intended to be a more capable GUI layer that will still operate in tandem
> with underlying, non-graphical model classes? 

They can be if you want them to be.

> If not, why is combining
> model and GUI a good thing?

More like "when is it a good thing":
	* when you don't have multiple views on the same model
	* when the end user is constructing Morphs and behaviors on the fly
	* when you don't need the added complexity that MVC brings to the design

> Regardless of the first point, what is or are the core innovations of
> morphs?

Lots of reading out there:

http://dmoz.org/Computers/Programming/GUI/Morphic/
http://www.sun.com/research/self/papers/self4.0UserInterface.html
http://minnow.cc.gatech.edu:8080/squeak/uploads/self-4.0-ui-framework.pdf (if 
Minnow ever gets back up)

-- 
Ned Konz
currently: Stanwood, WA
email:     ned at bike-nomad.com
homepage:  http://bike-nomad.com





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list