On 3/6/11 10:46 PM, "Casey Ransberger" <casey.obrien.r at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yeah, in Squeak's situation it makes even more sense than it makes in Pharo,
> because we have a lot of features and applications in our image which the
> community is strongly aligned against breaking until they can be reloaded as
> external packages, which I think is admirable and responsible, but makes it
> really hard to drive Morphic into the future.
> 
> SimpleMorphic is nice because we can enjoy our past while slicing off a
> delicious piece of the future (Cuis' Morphic implementation approaches an
> ideal in my view, though some features are missing.)
> 
> On Mar 6, 2011, at 2:01 PM, "Edgar J. De Cleene" <edgardec2005 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 3/6/11 1:05 PM, "David T. Lewis" <lewis at mail.msen.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> Hi Edgar,
>>> 
>>> The integration of © as a Squeak project is not
>>> complete, so think of this as "pre-alpha". But I'm still working
>>> on it, and learning a lot about Morphic in the process :)
>>> 
>>> Dave
>> 
>> Yes , I know.
>> A lot of work for having a useful system, but is a giant step having
>> SimpleMorphic running.
>> 
>> 
>> Need re-doing all tools windows.
>> Can beg Monticello Browser first ?
>> 
>> My idea is having a no backward compatible system.
>> Run in SimpleMorphic  on top of Squeak / Pharo cross.
>> 
>> Lots of learning....
>> 
>> 
>> Edgar


It's obvious none today Morphic app could run in SimpleMorphic, right ?
So, what about if we design a Traslator package which could take a today
Morphic app and convert it to SimpleMorphic ?

Juan could advice to a Translator "Task Force".
As I have a nice internal LAN with all kind of computers , volunteer for
doing test and reports.
When learn how to do , also could help with code.

Edgar