>Lex said...
>>Keep in mind that we have multiple projects using Squeak.  For some, MVC
>>is fine.  For myself, MVC is attrocious and Morphic is a massive
>>improvement.  (regarding speed, load a 3.0 image sometime and see how
>>fast morphic *can* go....)  And for others--perhaps the *majority* of
>>Squeak users -- EToys is where it is at.  A Squeak without EToys is a no
>>go for the general population.  At best, such a Squeak is a fork.

Juan replied...
>I perfectly understand this. I just believe "standard", "basic", "minimal"
>or whatever should not include eToys. And probably not even Morphic.
>All these should be loadable packages. Of course, pre-made distros with
>eToys or whatever a set of users want would be good. But made by loading
>optional packages form a suitable Universe to the small main standard image.

An alternative to including MVC, as the sort of minimal support, is to include a *basic* morphic package -- the kind of lean version that John Maloney always used for his tutorials.  It doesn't take a lot more than this (or it didn't back when I wrote them, heh, heh) to support all the normal system windows, and thus the development environment.

I don't think it's much more code than the MVC framework.

It could (with a bit of attention) be a nice intro to Morphic.

It would let us finally package and remove the ST80 classes.

It would mean that the move from "minimal" up would not be a change
	of metaphor, but just stuff added.

For that reason it would also be more likely that one could port
	a morphic app back down to minimal if needed.

and for *that* reason, it might even encourage usage of simpler Morph protocols.

Just my 2 cents

	- Dan