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

Hi Folks,

I apologize for not answering each message, but I can't get mail
(problems @dc.uba.ar). So, if anybody sent me personal mail today, most
likely I lost it. Please resend to this adress.

First of all, Goran, thank you for your support.

I don't think this needs much further discussion. But I'd like to know
the board's opinion (or at least, the board member's one).

To Ron, you asked 'A question for Juan, can your Morphic 3.0
advancements be applied to Tweak?'. I don't know. You also said 'I would
like to see Juan and other Squeak developers work towards getting Tweak
ready and include it in Squeak'. Do you think it is of any use each one
of us to start saying what we would like the others to work on? Come on!
Nobody gets paid here. Each one of us works on whatever we want!

To *Jimmie, wrt '*and I would love to see some pre-built images which
target certain user groups, eToys, business apps, web server, etc. I
believe Spoon, Pavel & Juan, offer hope for such a future'. I agree with
you. Thanks.

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

To Francisco, Interesting experiment!

Cheers,
Juan Vuletich

Hi Folks,

I apologize for not answering each message, but I can't get mail
(problems @dc.uba.ar). So, if anybody sent me personal mail today, most
likely I lost it. Please resend to this adress.

First of all, Goran, thank you for your support.

I don't think this needs much further discussion. But I'd like to know
the board's opinion (or at least, the board member's one).

To Ron, you asked 'A question for Juan, can your Morphic 3.0
advancements be applied to Tweak?'. I don't know. You also said 'I would
like to see Juan and other Squeak developers work towards getting Tweak
ready and include it in Squeak'. Do you think it is of any use each one
of us to start saying what we would like the others to work on? Come on!
Nobody gets paid here. Each one of us works on whatever we want!

To *Jimmie, wrt '*and I would love to see some pre-built images which
target certain user groups, eToys, business apps, web server, etc. I
believe Spoon, Pavel & Juan, offer hope for such a future'. I agree with
you. Thanks.

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

To Francisco, Interesting experiment!

Cheers,
Juan Vuletich

On 11/1/06, Juan Vuletich <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I don't think this needs much further discussion. But I'd like to know
> the board's opinion (or at least, the board member's one).
>

Ok - very short and very general. I missed most of the discussion -
problems with my back kept me from reading any mailing lists, I could
barely sit behind the computer long enough to read my personal mail.

I'm a "do it" kind of guy. If someone with a good reputation proposes
to clean up some of the mess in the image, I will heartily endorse it.
If people think that particular guy will mess things up, they can join
the team and work with him, or keep their mouths shut :)

So, I'd say: go ahead!

Juan,

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.

Bill


Juan Vuletich:
To Bill, I agree that floats and general transformations are not the
best solution for everything. Your point about PDAs is specially
valid.
Currently Morphic 3.0 is not a reasonable alternative to replace
Morphic
2.0. But maybe some day. Wrt to 'killing the pixel'. The pixel is
dying
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: [hidden email]
Tel: (352) 846-1285
FAX: (352) 392-7029

Hi Bill,

Bill Schwab escribió:
> Juan,
>
> 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 . 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).


Cheers,
Juan Vuletich

Juan,

I'm not sure we do agree, or you would have said "provide higher level, anti-aliased, graphic transformations" in addition to traditional bitmapped graphics vs. (what I thought I read) trying to kill the pixel concept.  I will likely need to be able to use integer coordinates and bitmaps; I also want to not need to use them.  Optional physical measurements in floating point form to potentially composite transformations is a great idea; just don't forget the bitblt and friends are _really_ useful not to mention fast.  My hunch is that Smalltalk will allow the code to be shared, with floats flying around only if requested somewhere along the chain of inputs and transformations.

To the extent that you are suplementing vs. replacing the basic graphics capabilities, it probably becomes less important.  But speed and flexibility will always be important options, if only because we will want to do ever more on ever smaller devices.

Bill



Juan Vuletich:
Hi Bill,

Bill Schwab escribió:
> Juan,
>
> 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 . 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).


Cheers,
Juan Vuletich




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

Email: [hidden email]
Tel: (352) 846-1285
FAX: (352) 392-7029

Juan,

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
ignored.

Cheers
--Trygve

On 02.11.2006 22:51, Juan Vuletich wrote:

--

Trygve Reenskaug      mailto: [hidden email]
Morgedalsvn. 5A       http://heim.ifi.uio.no/~trygver
N-0378 Oslo           Tel: (+47) 22 49 57 27
Norway

The same with a bit! A bit out of place can crash the whole computer!

Cheers,
Juan Vuletich

Trygve Reenskaug escribió: