Bert Freudenberg wrote:
> On 28.03.2009, at 04:19, Juan Vuletich wrote:
>
>> Igor Stasenko wrote:
>>>
>>> A note in 'About Cuis' states:
>>> [[
>>> The first outcome of that team splitting of Morphic in several
>>> packages. As the Squeak community wasn't willing to start dropping
>>> complexity (and functionality), we decided to maintain our own image.
>>> ]]
>>>
>>> I think this is not the case today. I'm always thinking that splitting
>>> Morphic onto separate parts would be best way towards modularity.
>>>
>>>
>> Sure. Everybody agrees on that. That's why we did split Morphic in 3 
>> packages: Morphic, Morphic-Extras and EToys. But there is too much 
>> dependency between them, and decoupling them in a way that would 
>> allow them to be loaded back is too hard. So the hard decision is to 
>> completely drop stuff. I removed Morphic-Extras and Etoys. They can 
>> not be loaded back.
>
>
> Having seen various attempts at that I think splitting Morphic is 
> *not* the best way forward. Instead, I think the current FullMorphic 
> (i.e. including Etoys and all the goodies) should be treated as one 
> unit and there would be complete replacements for it. Support for 
> switching between different UIs would be added and once that is done, 
> one particular replacement could be a stripped-down Morphic like that 
> from Cuis. Or much more different replacements like (native) Brazil, 
> Tweak, etc.
>
> - Bert -
>
Agreed.

Cheers,
Juan Vuletich