Stephane Ducasse wrote:
> Hi todd
> 
> I wish you will produce something simple.
> Todd I once read an interview (or may be this is in the chapter written  
> by dan for the blue book)
> in which he explains that the way submorph was layouted was  
> conceptually an error (it is relatiev and should have been absolute or  
> vice versa).
> 
> Chris I think that the best way to help todd (I may be completely worng)
> is not to write documentation but small scenario (eventually that we  
> could test) that document
> how to build simple and more complex system with newMorph.

Oh I think of little pieces. For example these are in the image:
- class comments
- method comments
- clear categorization for the API and private methods
- clear naming of vars (for example aStringMorph)

and these could be at SqueakMap and/or in the MagicBook
- examples
- HowTo's (How to build a window with a menubar)
- ... tell more ideas

It would be great if this documentation work is done by more than one 
person (ideally by two) because different people have different views. 
But these pieces should be very small so it is fast and easy to 
understand and change them.

For example Todd has done something and sends a changeset to Chris. 
Chris adds/changes comments and sends it back to Todd. And so on. 
Something like XP between one developer and one documenter. Only two 
people on one (small) changeset.

This is exactly what I meant when I revived this discussion about 
documentation. One Leader that guides a Newbie. The Leader will get 
feedback and the Newbie can learn in a very good way.

Good night for today :-)

> Todd did you ask andreas rabb/john maloney what is the lessons they  
> learned and how they would
> proceed if they would rebuild Morph? Because this could be a good  
> source of information
> 
> Stef

Why Stef and not Steph ??? Just wondering ...
PS: Thanks for the great work at the smalltalk books! I love it!

> On Sunday, March 9, 2003, at 10:56 PM, Chris Burkert wrote:
> 
>> Todd,
>>
>> tblanchard at mac.com wrote:
>> > FWIW,  I've been working on ProtoMorph, trying to get a new base  Morph
>> > class that is more straightforward to use.  The number one "issue" I
>> > run into when trying to build composite morphs is layout.  It is my
>> > opinion that the current layout schemes are a little too "tense" -  IOW
>> > they execute too much code that sometimes conflicts and this makes  
>> them
>> > unpredictable.
>> >
>> > I am making slow progress getting a ProtoMorph that can be composed
>> > using a struts and springs scheme like you find in NextStep.
>> >
>> > I've completely given up on trying to fix Morph itself as it is
>> > *FRAGILE* and making little changes in it frequently results in a
>> > frozen system (as does trying to write new layout managers).
>> >
>> > My plan is to get ProtoMorph working properly including doing struts
>> > and springs layout, then start reimplementing many of our popular
>> > morphs on top of ProtoMorph rather than Morph.  When SystemWindow is
>> > done, it should be really easy to make a new tool with conventional
>> > resizing behavior.
>> >
>> > I just thought I'd mention what I'm doing in case anyone else is
>> > thinking about tackling the same issue.
>>
>> This is great and I'm looking forward to it. If this shall replace the
>> existing Morphic System, wouldn't it be good, if some of the
>> documentation team could 'escort' you in this process? I would  volunteer
>> for that. We could sync development and documentation. I surely would
>> have some more newbie-like thoughts and you some more technical  thoughts
>> that could lead in more understandable documentation.
>>
>> And if then somebody would correct my bad english :-) ... who knows ...
>> maybe people could understand what's going on.
>>
>>             Chris Burkert
>> --  
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -
>> Student of applied Computer Science at Chemnitz University of  Technology
>>      http://www.chrisburkert.de/            chris at chrisburkert.de
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- -
>> "I invented the term Object-Oriented, and I can tell you I did not have
>>  C++ in mind." - Alan Kay --> http://www.whysmalltalk.com/
>>
>>
>>
> Prof. Dr. Stéphane DUCASSE (ducasse at iam.unibe.ch)  
> http://www.iam.unibe.ch/~ducasse/
>  "if you knew today was your last day on earth, what would you do  
> different? ...  especially if,
>  by doing something different, today might not be your last day on  
> earth" Calvin&Hobbes
> 
> "The best way to predict the future is to invent it..." Alan Kay.
> 
> Open Source Smalltalks: www.squeak.org,  
> www.gnu.org/software/smalltalk/smalltalk.html
> Free books for Universities at  
> http://www.esug.org/sponsoring/promotionProgram.html
> Free Online Book at www.iam.unibe.ch/~ducasse/FreeBooks.html

Regards
            Chris Burkert
-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Student of applied Computer Science at Chemnitz University of Technology
      http://www.chrisburkert.de/            chris at chrisburkert.de
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I invented the term Object-Oriented, and I can tell you I did not have
  C++ in mind." - Alan Kay --> http://www.whysmalltalk.com/