Hi!

"Andreas Raab" <andreas.raab at gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi Goran,
> 
> > Not sure what you mean, but that is what I said. :) I know that I keep
> > bitching about openness and all that. Can't help it. Perhaps this is
> > related to the fact that I am in this community all by "myself" and you
> > guys are working on company paid projects. Different perspectives I
> > suppose.
> 
> Perhaps. I'm just more interested in getting work done than explaining 
> myself. Just have a look at this goddamn never-ending thread! ;-)

Well, sometimes "explaining yourself" leads to other people
understanding, feeling invited and actually participating in helping you
"getting work done". :) But whatever, let's cut the thread.

> > I should have written "what does Tweak need more?" As in what you know
> > *today* it needs or you know it will need. I just want a grip on how
> > "hard" it would be to have the "official Squeak" move more towards Tweak
> > - regardless of the current abstraction discussion.
> 
> Define "need" ;-) No, I am dead-serious. I do not know what you would define 
> as "Tweak needs it". I can guess though, perhaps that you mean what do the 
> widgets in Tweak need (this seems to be the major thrust of the question). 
> This is easiest answered by looking at the MC pakets (those are for obvious 
> reasons in dependency order). What it needs is:
> * The asynchronous event architecture
> * The syntactic sugar for method annotations and events
> * The graphics support (as soon as this is in place)
> That's about it.

That is indeed what I meant - and then I guess it looks nice. This
asynch stuff (Islands right?) - I wonder how "intrusive" that would be.
Oh, well - we will see.
 
> >> > The Islands stuff (which of course sounds nice too)? This would be
> >> > interesting to hear about.
> >>
> >> I'll tell you as soon as I find out. Right now I'm still in the midst of
> >> getting that part of the architecture right.
> >
> > *You* are in the midst of getting that right? Surely you mean "the open
> > Tweak project" is? ;)
> 
> I think this is one of the differences between the two of us - I have no 
> problems taking responsibility for my actions. I am doing this and if it 

Mmmm, I don't think I have problems with that either - but I assume you
didn't imply otherwise.

> goes wrong I will take the blame. The project architecture is (for good 
> reasons) my baby - if you want to find the most screwed up part of Squeak 
> look at projects! I am going to show that projects can be small and 

Hehe, I don't use Projects. :) And yes, I have caught glimpses of code
in there, and yes - it does look messed up.

> beautiful. Modular and efficient. I'm working with the whole team on this 
> (incl. Dan who is working on the modularity aspects) but it is my 
> responsibility, my baby. And you know what - I really like it that way ;-)

I know. It is all fine. I just want to see how it all fits together with
the rest of us you know.

> > (I couldn't help myself. Forgive me! It was
> > totally tongue in cheek. A beer on me next time we meet? :) )
> 
> Heh, sure. But when will this be? (I figure you won't be travelling much 
> these days)

Nah, not much travelling for me. But you are always welcome to
Stockholm! :)

> Cheers,
>   - Andreas

regards, Göran