[squeak-dev] Re: Burn the Squeak Image! (Why I am running for board)

Klaus D. Witzel klaus.witzel at cobss.com
Sat Feb 28 16:19:51 UTC 2009


On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 16:55:38 +0100, David Mitchell wrote:

> KernalImage doesn't have a GUI.

Here's a bit more background; Eliot is this headless enough?

-  
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2005-October/096111.html

> It can load Monticello packages. He
> has a script that will load in MorphicCore.
>
> MorphicCore does (but has many bugs).
>
> MorphicExt is more stable, but larger.
>
> KernalImage is a Squeak image without any GUI. It has collections,
> numbers, classes, the compiler, but little else. It has a text-based
> UI that can evaluate Smalltalk expressions, and it can load files from
> disk. Pavel has a fileIn for Monticello, so then you can load any
> other package, as long as it doesn't have a GUI.
>
> His other image is called MinimalMorphic. He has a Monticello package
> for it, so you can load it from KernalImage. MinimalMorphic isn't
> particularly minimal, but it has had some stuff (like eToys) removed
> and I think he wants to remove more. It is a basic Morphic
> environment, showing that you can separate MVC from Morphic.
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Eliot Miranda wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 7:44 AM, Klaus D. Witzel wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 15:35:49 +0100, Eliot Miranda wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 1:17 AM, edgar De Cleene wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > A standard "kernel image" that everyone builds
>>>>> > off of has long
>>>>> > been a pipe dream of nearly everyone in the community. I
>>>>> > believe
>>>>> > that such an image is not achievable in the short term;
>>>>> > convincing all of the squeak distributions to adopt it
>>>>> > would be
>>>>> > nearly impossible to adopt incrementally.
>>>>> >
>>>>>
>>>>> Such image exist and is MorphicCore of Pavel Krivanek.
>>>>> We should go towards this , removing packages from the top and  
>>>>> reshaping
>>>>> packages if packages as we know today can't be unloades/loaded nicely
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Any image containing a GUI is a non-starter IMO.  People may not want  
>>>> a
>>>> GUI
>>>> (e.g. the embedded and scripting folks).  People may want a particular
>>>> GUI
>>>> (MVC, Morphic, Tweak, Newspeak, Croquet, one of the native GUIs) with  
>>>> no
>>>> vestiges of the old one.  So the common image needs to be a small
>>>> headless
>>>> core that can bootstrap any image.  This image needs minimal scripting
>>>> support to respond to command-line bootstrap commands (including
>>>> cross-platform stdin & stdout and a file interface), a compiler with
>>>> which
>>>> to compile code, collections, magnitudes, exceptions (as necessary), a
>>>> default error handler that dumps the stack to stdout and then aborts,  
>>>> and
>>>> that's about it.
>>>>
>>>> All images derived from it should be derived by running scripts
>>>> (repeatable process).
>>>
>>> Sure, and Pavel's has this all, and it's working, no wonder that Edgar
>>> often mentions it:
>>>
>>> -  
>>> http://www.cincomsmalltalk.com/userblogs/ralph/blogView?entry=3342635112
>>
>> If it doesn't have a GUI then why is it called MorphicCore??!
>> Reading from the blog entry it looks like it has eToys removed but not  
>> much
>> more.
>> Pavel, is it a headless image?
>> Klaus, if the image is not headless ten it doesn't meet my  
>> specification.
>>
>>>
>>>> These scripts should be versioned.
>>>>
>>>> Further, this initial image should be built from scratch, e.g. using  
>>>> John
>>>> Maloney's MicroSqueak as a starting point.
>>>
>>> Interesting. Where is that one, search didn't show it:
>>>
>>> - http://www.google.com/search?q=John+Maloney+MicroSqueak
>>>
>>> [... much more good stuff cut away ...]
>>>
>>> --
>>> "If at first, the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it".
>>> Albert Einstein
>>>
>>
>




More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list