On 23 mai 06, at 01:07, Juan Vuletich wrote:

> Hello Ralph,
>
> I am the guy who tried to split Morphic in smaller packages that  
> could be easily unloaded.
> I failed. I did split Morphic in 3 big packages and a few small  
> ones, as you can see in Squeak 3.9. That took some work, but it can  
> be done. The big problem is that Etoys was not designed as a  
> separate package from the rest of the image. Writing Etoys impacted  
> everywhere. Therefore we have tons dependencies on it absolutely  
> everywhere. The same happens with Projects, Morphic and lots of  
> other "optional" functionality.

this is why it would be good to declare 3.10 not compatible and  
massively clean.
At the same time if people get spoon up and running (which I hope)  
then we could reach both branches in the middle,
and have some clean packages.

> I wanted something better: To redesign those dependencies in such a  
> way that just unloading the Etoys package would leave everything  
> working, and to allow re-loading it back. This is easy on small  
> examples, but an inmense amount of work with something like Etoys  
> in Squeak 3.9. Added to this were the difficulties in publishing my  
> stuff. This kind of changes generates new versions of almost all  
> the packages in Squeak all the time, conflicting with any other  
> thing someone could be working on, and giving a very hard time to  
> MC. So despite all the help Stef gave me, I finally abandoned the  
> idea.
>
> I hope to be of some help. BTW, let me thank you. Some of your  
> wrintings were really important when I took my first OOP course at  
> the university.
>
> Regards,
> Juan Vuletich
>
> Ps:
> For anyone who can be interested, I'm redesigning Morphic as an  
> experiment. The image I'm working is a 3.7 with no Etoys, no  
> Projects and a lot of Morphic removed. The Morph hierarchy was  
> removed to OldMorph, and Morph is my new experiment. The TestMorph  
> class is what I use to play there. It is available at http:// 
> www.sinectis.com.ar/u/jmvuletich/NewMorphic13.zip . Warning: This  
> is really early and primitive. If anyone wants more details, I'll  
> send them.

Keep doing it!

>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ralph Johnson"  
> <johnson at cs.uiuc.edu>
> To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list" <squeak- 
> dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> Sent: Friday, May 19, 2006 9:20 AM
> Subject: Re: Whither Squeak?
>
>
>> On 5/19/06, Cees De Groot <cdegroot at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> - Squeak 3.x is so far quite succesful in resisting us applying
>>> software engineering efforts to it. The reasons are manifold, but  
>>> two
>>> major reasons are manpower and available tools, neither is going to
>>> change any time soon;
>>
>> What does this mean?  Is this another way of saying "A lot of people
>> have been trying to modularize Squeak and we haven't gotten very  
>> far."
>>
>> I'd like to see some of the concrete problems that rose during
>> attempts at modularization.  Why is it so hard?  For example, I have
>> heard that people have tried to strip Morphic out of the image, and
>> they have tried to strip MVC out of the image, and both have failed.
>> Why did it fail?
>>
>> I think this is a very interesting question, and understanding why it
>> failed will teach us a lot about software in general.  If it is hard
>> to modularize code in Smalltalk, which is one of the most flexible  
>> and
>> visible languages in the world, imagine the problem modularizing the
>> Linix kernel!
>>
>> Is this what you mean?
>>
>> -Ralph Johnson
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.6.1/343 - Release Date:  
>> 5/18/2006
>>
>
>