Proposal for a Squeak migration meeting
stéphane ducasse
ducasse at iam.unibe.ch
Thu Jul 6 15:48:22 UTC 2006
On 6 juil. 06, at 17:23, Hilaire Fernandes wrote:
> Bert Freudenberg a écrit :
>
>> Right. Because nobody from the Squeak community took on that
>> task, yet, so there's nobody you could have "helped". Also, there
>> was no "decision" yet that Tweak actually should replace Morphic.
>> There are many cool features in Tweak, I personally like its
>> ideas a lot, but there are also people who dislike it for various
>> reasons. The first step would be that more people from the
>> community actually try to do something serious in Tweak. Only
>> then could you estimate if it is
>
> People will not do serious things with Tweak as long as they do not
> have a middle term visibility about Tweak. Like it or not, this is
> how it work. An expression of interest from the Tweak developper to
> get Tweak mainstream in Squeak could of course change that. But it
> seems, as I learn it recently from other email of the thread, that
> it is not the case.
+1
>
>
>> actually worth-while to switch to Tweak as the default UI.
>> Also, mind you, it took Morphic quite some time until it became
>> the default UI. Several people worked full-time on it. That's
>> also a reason why the "Tweak developers" don't take on such a
>> task lightly.
>
> It is understandable as resource is now tight. However it is not an
> excuse to not communicate, which seems to be the problem now.
+1
>
> Tweak is developped with Squeak for Squeak, its integration
> mainstream in Squeak can only be done in collaboration with the
> Tweak developper.
> Steph suggested me a few days ago, to play with Tweak as a base for
> further development. I look at the tutorial, it was nice, I love
> many of the developer features comming with Tweak. Tweak introduced
> new paradigm as the annotation. This new features are changes to
> the core Squeak, IMHO to integrate thus core modifcation in Squeak
> a close collaboration is needed between the Tweak developer and the
> Squeak integrator. Without communication between both it is even
> not a good idea to try to do so, remember resources is tight for
> every one.
>
>
>> Lighten up you french guys, you're gonna win the soccer world
>> cup, right? ;-)
>> Seriously, if someone came up with the idea to switch to Qt (just
>> to name some UI), would you expect the Qt developers to lead that
>> effort?
>
> Hum, I may say your are mixing two different problems.
>
> One is integrating a framework written in Squeak into Squeak, were
> collaboration is needed between the framework and Squeak developers.
>
> The second one is writting a Qt binding for Squeak, which is indeed
> abolutely not the problem of the Qt developers.
>
> In the first one, you have to integrate in Squeak additionnal
> Squeak code, which can cause trouble. For example the framework
> did some needed modification in the core Squeak, and thus
> modification may need to be adjusted both in the framework and the
> core Squeak. In that case communication and collaboration between
> the Squeak and framework developpers is mandatory.
>
> In the second case, writting a Qt binding. It is unlikely, no it is
> impossible, you will need to change the Qt library to get working
> binding. More likely collaboration with the VM developper will be
> needed.
>
> See you in Berlin ;-)
>
> Hilaire
>
More information about the Squeak-dev
mailing list
|