On Feb 10, 2005, at 6:41 PM, Craig Latta wrote:

> Hi all--
>
> 	Cees wrote:
>
> > > All I am going to say: with all the interest in the principles of
> > > Spoon, something in the communication process must have been very
> > > wrong that hardly any feedback was received...
>
> 	Blake responded:
>
> > Or there weren't very many interested people. I'm not sure there 
> were;
> > I'm  not sure there are, actually.
>
> 	Yeah, that was my point.
>
> -C

I'll confess that I haven't commented much on Spoon, although I've been 
following it.  (Nice name, by the way... perhaps "Squat" had some 
negative connotations. :-)  "Spoon" is simple and catchy.)

Up until now, I think the prospect of incorporating the Spoon work just 
seemed too daunting, for me to really comment on it. :-)  Or one could 
simply start a new community based on it, but that's quite difficult, 
too.

But I think our current effort to partition the image, if successful, 
will make it easier to try things with Spoon, and give us a better 
chance to seriously consider using Spoon as a new kernel.

For example, after our partitioning we may end up with a lumpy, 
non-streamlined, 300K Squeak-Kernel image, but a working headless image 
nonetheless.  We can then compare that with the svelte 100K (?) 
Spoon-Kernel image (created via imprinting) to see what the differences 
are.  We can consider moving features from one kernel to the other.

Or, someone could try to modify the Graphics 1.0 package (from Squeak) 
to work as a loadable Spoon module.  And then other packages.  Or, you 
might tweak Spoon to be able to load Graphics 1.0 as-is.

Etc.

Does this make sense?

- Doug