On Tuesday 27 August 2002 01:19 pm, Mark4Flies at aol.com wrote:
> I saw a flurry of messages a couple of weeks ago about Squeak and
> MVC. (Is anyone still using it?) Unfortunately I was was buried in
> work and had to skip the whole discussion. I wonder if any one
> would spare a brief moment to give me a summary of that discussion
> and any decisions for Squeak.

Boris found a bug in 3.2 that would have made debugging in MVC almost 
impossible.

Scott fixed this bug, then asked whether anyone really used MVC.

Several of us said that we used MVC because we're on slow machines (or 
small ones), like PDAs.

This began a long thread about how slow Morphic was on some machines.

Dan suggested that MVC users might also be less likely to jump on new 
versions, and so might be running 2.8.

I have used MVC for fixing things in Morphic that might cause Morphic 
to die (like my recent changes to MorphExtensions).

Craig said that he runs the Interpreter Simulator (which is apparently 
broken in 3.2 MVC) in MVC in 2.7.

----- My opinion was: ------
Those of us who run Squeak embedded (as a server, or controlling 
hardware, for instance) and still want a local UI for debugging, etc. 
still use MVC if we want a small image. "Smalltalk majorShrink" 
(which no longer works, I think), for example, created (at one time?) 
an MVC-only image that was < 1Mb in size (vs. the >5M for the 
distribution image).

If you're making a tool that might be useful in that kind of 
environment (a programming tool of some sort), consider making it 
compatible with MVC if you can.

The Pluggable* components make simple UIs pretty easy to do for both 
MVC and Morphic.
--------------

-- 
Ned Konz
http://bike-nomad.com
GPG key ID: BEEA7EFE