I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you?

Bill Schwab BSchwab at anest.ufl.edu
Thu Nov 2 17:45:03 UTC 2006


If you are truly creating an extension to morphic, perhaps you should
change the name?  Calling it morphic 3.0 gives the impression that you
plan to replace 2.0.  As for the pixel, I must disagree; the pixel will
die when we have "vector driven" or some other kind of display that is
not memory mapped.  As long as there are discretely addressable
elements, they should be available, even if there are better ways to
draw.  Imagine external interfacing w/o byte arrays and pointers. 
Granted, we try to hide the details behind abstractions, but sometimes
we simply have to get our hands dirty.

This thread has passed the point of my being able to follow it.  I will
continue to try to do so, but I know I am missing things.


Juan Vuletich:
To Bill, I agree that floats and general transformations are not the
best solution for everything. Your point about PDAs is specially
Currently Morphic 3.0 is not a reasonable alternative to replace
2.0. But maybe some day. Wrt to 'killing the pixel'. The pixel is
anyway. Postcript, pdf, display postcript, aqua, vista, see where the
path goes?

Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D.
University of Florida
Department of Anesthesiology
PO Box 100254
Gainesville, FL 32610-0254

Email: bills at anest4.anest.ufl.edu
Tel: (352) 846-1285
FAX: (352) 392-7029

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list