Cees de Groot <cg at cdegroot.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 20:49:23 -0400, Lex Spoon <lex at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> 
> > Additionally, the UI abstraction task is fine but seems relatively
> > unimportant compared to these other items.  How muh code, really, is
> > going to find it useful to target 5 different UI's?
> 
> Ehh... mostly all of the development tools? 

As you know, those already work in all the UI's.  Thus a UI abstraction
does not help them; it only pretties them up.  Pretty code is nice but
should not be on the top of this priority list.


> Plus it's the basis for  
> defining the targets of the morphic untanglement thing, which will likely  
> cut and and partition some major chunks of the image.

That's a better reason, but it doesn't seem like a very high priority. 
It's clearly a lower priority than setting up infrastructure to support
the partitioning.  Chopping Squeak into even tinier bits, is not useful
if we end up keeping all the bits in the monolithic image because no one
bothered to put together the proper infrastructure.

This is a cool project.  I am just saying that there are higher
priorities for the Squeak community at large.


-Lex