I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you? (was Re: Removing Etoys, Morphic and other friends)

mmille10 at comcast.net mmille10 at comcast.net
Wed Nov 1 01:02:26 UTC 2006

The discussion about this has been a bit confusing, but not too much. If what I understand is correct, that the plan is to have a "full" image of Squeak that contains Morphic/eToys, which will be removable, or a "full" image + an additional dev. image w/o eToys, with the idea that an upgrade to Morphic will be in the works for the future, it sounds like a good interim solution to me. I vote "yes". Hopefully someday eToys will be reworked as well.


-------------- Original message -------------- 
From: goran at krampe.se 

> Hi all! 
> Since it feels that we are getting more concrete here I decided to 
> rename the subject. Perhaps people join up in the discussion again. :) 
> Juan Vuletich wrote: 
> > Hi Goran! 
> > 
> > goran at krampe.se escribi󺊦lt;BR>> > > Hi Juan and all! 
> > > 
> > > I just want to say I am 100% with you on all this. 
> > > 
> > Thanks. It's nice to know that. 
> Though I am just one of "us" you know. :) But yes, it is nice to feel 
> that people agree - and as I said I am all with you for three major 
> reasons: 
> 1. You are a doer. You have already proved that. 
> 2. You are committed to this. We don't have many people committed to 
> Morphic development (on this low level) these days and I value each and 
> every one highly. 
> 3. You have a plan. 
> And my principle is that if someone is itching to improve something and 
> has the above 3 things, then there is not much to argue about - I say 
> go. :) 
> > > Could you possibly (as you probably know Morphic/eToys better than most 
> > > of us) list the parts that we could "decide" about leaving in or ripping 
> > > out? Lex started a list, but he also included some things that I had not 
> > > thought were included (like ImageSegment for example). 
> > > 
> > To me eToys what you can find in the eToys package. That's why I put it 
> > there! 
> :) 
> > Going thru Lex's list. (Lex, I didn't answer to your post because I 
> > think the list should be built by the community, and I didn't want to 
> > sound authoritative on this!) 
> > - Tile based programming system. Yes. The central part of eToys. 
> > - Halos. No. Halos are key to Morphic. 
> > - Named morph search. No. I'd put this in 'MorphicExtras'. 
> > - Uniclasses. Yes. They were implemented in Squeak to support eToys. And 
> > they are not Smalltalky to me. However, 'make own subclass' is not 
> > eTtoys, and distinct from uniclasses to me. 
> > - SmartRefStream and ImageSegments. No! Why would they? 
> > - Projects and saving projects. No. 
> > - Paint tool. No. 
> > - Flaps. No. 
> I think this list sounds perfect to me. 
> > Anyway, I don't want to say what should be removed and what should not. 
> > But clearly in my reduced 3.7 image, I removed lots of stuff besides eToys. 
> > Let me repeat: To me eToys what it is in the eToys package. 
> > > I think it would be a nice way forward in this discussion. 
> > > 
> > > regards, G? 
> > > 
> > > PS. This subject came up around an OOPSLA hacking table with Dan present 
> > > - he also remarked that Morphic is indeed quite small - if you consider 
> > > only Morphic itself. 
> > :) 
> > > But we did not discuss the issue at any great 
> > > length. Also Doug applied your recipe to have a look at the result etc. 
> > > 
> > Doug, I'd like to know what were your impressions on this! 
> > > We never got around to any personal conclusions, though. But I for one 
> > > applaud and greatly appreciate your diligence in this matter and I think 
> > > it would be GREAT to have a small "isolated" clean Morphic in Squeak 
> > > that is maintained and proven. And I am probably not alone in that. 
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > Well, I hope you're interested in my Morphic 3.0 project then. It is my 
> > vision for morphic improvement. Check www.jvuletich.org ! 
> I am. Let me put this interest in some perspective btw: 
> 1. Morphic is proven to work. But seems to be in a mess and thus is 
> brittle and also not maintained much because people can't get a grip and 
> are also appalled about lots of the stuff that is in there today (eToys 
> related I think). So it is sitting still today. Btw, this is MY primary 
> objective behind getting eToys out - because I want a more attractive 
> Morphic that then might get maintained instead of just sit there. 
> 2. Tweak came along and people interested in these things probably 
> decided to hang around and wait to see if Tweak would end up replacing 
> Morphic in "official Squeak". Now it seems to not go that route, at 
> least not in a hurry. I love the fact that we have Tweak and new ideas 
> etc, but perhaps it is time to grab what we have and make the best of it 
> instead of waiting for Tweak. 
> So... Juan stepping up and offering his time to produce a clean, 
> maintainable and rejuvenated Morphic is IMHO Right On Cue. 
> I hope that people raise their voices and give him their support. 
> I then hope that the next release team (3 people that we still do not 
> know who they are) considers giving Juan a slot in 3.10 for this 
> rejuvenation, and I also hope that the board show their support in this. 
> And I hope that Juan is willing to take on the Steward role for Morphic 
> together with a few more brave souls with an interest in Morphic (there 
> are a few I think). I bet perhaps even Dan Ingalls could be interested, 
> but he might be too busy at work. 
> > Cheers, 
> > Juan Vuletich 
> regards, G? 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20061101/aae5bafc/attachment.htm

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list