Do you think that squeak is long overdue for a Refactoring only pass? -- Morphic

David P Harris dpharris at telus.net
Tue Jan 24 20:51:32 UTC 2006


stéphane ducasse wrote:

>
> On 24 janv. 06, at 20:48, David P Harris wrote:
>
>> stéphane ducasse wrote:
>>
>>>> Yup. Personally, I think:
>>>> - Start refactoring Collections and Morphic using Traits - I think
>>>> these two packages have a lot of code duplication all over the place
>>>> that could be neatly cleaned up in that way;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would not so that people do not feel prisoner of traits.
>>> Our goal is not to impose traits.
>>
>>
>> But could we not revert back just by flattening the Traits version?
>
>
> yes we can :)
>
>>   It would seem to be a good excercise anyway.  Morphic is (said)  to 
>> be due for a rewrite, and Traits would appear to be a good  method, 
>> and the effort would be a good trial of Traits.
>
>
> Yes but as I said. We are responsible (or feel it) for 3.9 and we  
> start to be exhausted.
> Marcus should really focus on his PhD and I should slow down with  
> harvesting. At the end of the day
> I would like to code something fun :).
> Or clean just for fun and let other deal with the mess of  
> integrating, complains..... you see just
> the fame, glory and fun. :)
>
> Stef

No, I fully appreciate the amount of work that goes into even 
(supposedly) simple changes.  And I agree that a 'new' project should 
wait for a recharge of energy. 

While I can appreciate the big strokes of these discussions, my 
knowledge of the insides of Squeak, and Morphic in particular, are 
extremely weak.  I would like to help a rewriting of Morphic, but I am 
afraid I would only slow it down with my learning curve.  Is there an 
outline of how Morphic should be restructured -- that kind of 
speculation is fun (maybe). 

Again, thanks to you and Marcus.  I always found having to concentrate 
on my PhD was a good way to stimulate other activities :-)

David






More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list