I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you?
trygver at ifi.uio.no
Fri Nov 3 09:17:22 UTC 2006
We can safely ignore the data bits, most of the time.
But a pixel out of place on the screen can be very visible and cannot be
On 02.11.2006 22:51, Juan Vuletich wrote:
> Hi Bill,
> Bill Schwab escribió:
>> 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.
> What I'm doing is not an extension to morphic. It is a redesign. Please
> read http://www.jvuletich.org/issues/Issue0002.htm .
>> 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.
> Then we agree. I see pixels as bits in memory. We all know our computers
> use them. But we can safely forget about them when we use our computers
> (and program them).
> Juan Vuletich
Trygve Reenskaug mailto: trygver at ifi.uio.no
Morgedalsvn. 5A http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~trygver
N-0378 Oslo Tel: (+47) 22 49 57 27
More information about the Squeak-dev