Removing Etoys, Morphic and other friends

Hi Giovanni,

on Thu, 26 Oct 2006 10:39:50 +0200, you wrote:
> Il giorno gio, 26/10/2006 alle 06.33 +0200, Klaus D. Witzel ha scritto:
...
> From what I've understood, Pavel has split the 3.9 image in two: a
> Kernel image which contains the basic system and a RestOfSqueak that has
> everything else. But it seems to me that the RestOfSqueak is as
> monolithic as the standard image: you can't reload Morphic only without
> loading Etoys, Nebraska etc.
>
> Pavel, am I correct?

And now that I've seen Pavel's corresponding response I think that I  
understand better. Thank you for asking the clearing question.

> Giovanni
>

Concentrating on the remaining issue(s): why is it so important that  
Morphic must be independent of Etoys, are they (have they) subclasses etc  
of each other? Or are there political reasons for having such an  
independence, or license reasons? Or what (perhaps elegance, perhaps  
maintainability)?

If there isn't anybody suggesting that she/he will divide Morphic by  
Etoys, starting with 3.9 and targeting for example 3.10 or 4.0, then  
please treat these questions as 100%[tm] rhetoric, thank you.

/Klaus

Thanks Edgar!

Of course you, and everybody else is invited to help. You can read a bit
and download from www.jvuletich.org . More to come!

Currently I'm working on the coordinate systems. I'd like to discuss about
the ideas and the design if you're interested.

Cheers,
Juan Vuletich

Am 26.10.2006 um 14:48 schrieb Klaus D. Witzel:

> Concentrating on the remaining issue(s): why is it so important  
> that Morphic must be independent of Etoys, are they (have they)  
> subclasses etc of each other? Or are there political reasons for  
> having such an independence, or license reasons? Or what (perhaps  
> elegance, perhaps maintainability)?

Etoys support is in the Morphic base classes, and even in its design  
- Morphic really only was made to support Etoys. Now, if you want a  
lean clean Morphic that just supports "business widgets" you have to  
rip everything related to Etoys out. I think that's what Juan did -  
but since the base is missing you cannot go back.

- Bert -

Hi Klaus,

> Concentrating on the remaining issue(s): why is it so important that
> Morphic must be independent of Etoys, are they (have they) subclasses etc
> of each other? Or are there political reasons for having such an
> independence, or license reasons? Or what (perhaps elegance, perhaps
> maintainability)?

Elegance and maintainability. Also to make it easier to use Morphic for
other purposes (for example, writing applications), that won't use eToys.

> If there isn't anybody suggesting that she/he will divide Morphic by
> Etoys, starting with 3.9 and targeting for example 3.10 or 4.0, then
> please treat these questions as 100%[tm] rhetoric, thank you.
>
> /Klaus

Well, In this very thread I said I have already done it in 3.7 (meaning I
showed that it can be done, that I can do it, and that you can check the
quality of my work). I also said I volunteer for doing it once more, in
the latest image, if the community wants to adopt it.

I also add here that I would remove only what the community wants removed.
I mean, Goran said recently he would like to keep Flaps in. Ok. If we can
decide what to remove and what to keep, I'll be happy to follow that
decision.

Note that I'm not volunteering to make eToys loadable back in. I already
said why.

So, you see, the question is not rethoric at all.

Cheers,
Juan Vuletich

Hi Bert,

Just a comment. My motivation is not "business widgets", but "programmer's
morphs". I want to do stuff like EnvelopeEditorMorph. And of course, my
Morphic 3.0 project.

Cheers,
Juan Vuletich

Hi Bert,

ahh, this was for stupid me! Great, now (I hope :) I got it.

So it's about Juan's work (which perhaps can be combined with Pavel's  
work, somehow, or perhaps not: who knows).

For me the speculation now has and end. All that remains is, I will wait  
for the respective announcement(s), they both will want us to test their  
good work.

And I'm happy to see that Edgar offered his support to Juan.

Thank you all for the constructive conversation, may the fruits follow!

/Klaus

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 14:57:38 +0200, Bert wrote:

Hi Juan,

on Thu, 26 Oct 2006 15:01:12 +0200, you wrote:
Great!

Yes, I'm happy to hearing this, and I thank you!

> I also add here that I would remove only what the community wants  
> removed.
> I mean, Goran said recently he would like to keep Flaps in. Ok. If we can
> decide what to remove and what to keep, I'll be happy to follow that
> decision.

Why would he want that? What's his use case for it? Personally I would  
wait for the outcome of

-  
http://www.google.com/search?q=designer+sex+kilobuck+site:lists.squeakfoundation.org

> Note that I'm not volunteering to make eToys loadable back in. I already
> said why.
>
> So, you see, the question is not rethoric at all.

:)

/Klaus

> Cheers,
> Juan Vuletich

Klaus D. Witzel puso en su mail :

> And I'm happy to see that Edgar offered his support to Juan.

I support Pavel too, but seems I wish go bolder.

Repeat, I have 3.8.1 SqueakLight (23/12/05) following Juan work  .

Without Flaps, Speech, Nebraska, Etoys...

So from a independent source all could know what is doable, and what each
new release the unload is harder.

Also try to have small pieces what actual packages , remember "Ladrillos "
idea ?

And I do experiments all time ...

How about a votation about a list of system parts what people use, love and
think was Squeak becomes a ugly place without ?

Could someone arrange a list of "features " on SqueakPeople and collect
result is say a week or two ?


Edgar


__________________________________________________
Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis!
¡Abrí tu cuenta ya! - http://correo.yahoo.com.ar

Hi Edgar,

I do not believe that Squeak community will run a voting on your  
suggestions. I learned that Squeak community does not function this way.  
They probably fear a) to commit themselves without having later a chance  
to bail out, b) that such a voting could be run quite frequently (2-3  
times/year) because everybody can ask for a new run and c) whatever their  
very personal reasons are: for example a possible incompatibility with one  
of their favorite package(s), which might be overruled by a voting, to  
their incovenience.

Instead Squeak community is expecting, IIANM, from you the initial  
"promoter" of your own ideas:

a - a formal release announcement (alpha, beta, gamma, rc, release),  
perhaps more or less of these steps.

b - a reasonable commitment that the maintainer fully supports her/his  
"thing" for a long time, now and in the future.

c - ease of use, (almost) no "do this, then do that, else whatsoever"  
scripts, easy "how-to", ease of integration, have fun.

This all can (but must not) be done without asking *anybody* whether they  
like your ideas or not. But being a bit trendy would not harm ;-)

Perhaps you reconsider your suggestion?

/Klaus

On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 18:57:08 +0200, Lic. Edgar J. De Cleene wrote:

Klaus D. Witzel puso en su mail :

> Instead Squeak community is expecting, IIANM, from you the initial
> "promoter" of your own ideas:
>



> a - a formal release announcement (alpha, beta, gamma, rc, release),
> perhaps more or less of these steps.

But I can't do such announcement.
What I could, I doing.

1) Following all what Pavel do and supporting. Maybe pushing he a little
sometimes.

2) As I was with Juan in Morphic Team and we email sometimes, I know the
quality of his works. Maybe I see some work of he not in the public view.

3) I still learning the deeps o Smalltalk/Squeak.


> b - a reasonable commitment that the maintainer fully supports her/his
> "thing" for a long time, now and in the future.

I have for SqueakLight. And hope what someone with more deep Smalltalk made
the 3.9 version (and the reason for help/disturb to Pavel and Juan).

SqueakLight began before Pavel works and have different ideas and long time
goal.

At this time is one small practical image, have almost all my forces and I
try to listen all complaints and do fixes.


> I do not believe that Squeak community will run a voting on your
> suggestions. I learned that Squeak community does not function this way.
> They probably fear a) to commit themselves without having later a chance
> to bail out, b) that such a voting could be run quite frequently (2-3
> times/year) because everybody can ask for a new run and c) whatever their
> very personal reasons are: for example a possible incompatibility with one
> of their favorite package(s), which might be overruled by a voting, to
> their incovenience.

Not writing to list our feelings or wish list for Squeak raise havoc ?
If this is how the cookie scrambles, well , I try to not email for a long
time.

Thanks for perspective view.
Edgar





__________________________________________________
Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis!
¡Abrí tu cuenta ya! - http://correo.yahoo.com.ar

Hi Edgar,

on Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:01:00 +0200, you wrote:
> Klaus D. Witzel puso en su mail :
...
Noooo! I was talking about your suggested formal voting process. Apologies  
if that went wrong. Please post your wishes and concerns. I make this  
comparision: the community opinion is somethings else than the  
communities' members opinion: the whole ~= the sum.

> If this is how the cookie scrambles, well , I try to not email for a long
> time.

:) C'mon, you're addicted as everybody else here is, aren't you :)

/Klaus

Klaus D. Witzel puso en su mail :

> Noooo! I was talking about your suggested formal voting process. Apologies
> if that went wrong. Please post your wishes and concerns. I make this
> comparision: the community opinion is somethings else than the
> communities' members opinion: the whole ~= the sum.

I understand the first time. My Advocatus Diaboli side answer :=)


> communities' members opinion: the whole ~= the sum.
Yes . Like Smalltalk/Squeak is a living thing more what a dumb list of
classes.

Wait and see.

Maybe follow Pavel and Juan from a loooong distance is safer and wiser.

Or try to see if Etoys load in a image without Etoys is Mission Impossible
IV or only something what no squeaker was lucky enough to do. ( Stay tuned)



Edgar


__________________________________________________
Correo Yahoo!
Espacio para todos tus mensajes, antivirus y antispam ¡gratis!
¡Abrí tu cuenta ya! - http://correo.yahoo.com.ar

Bert Freudenberg <[hidden email]> writes:

What exactly counts as EToys?  It's an honest question.  Let's go
through some of the potential pieces.

The tile-based programming scripting system?  Sure.

The halo system, where every morph can have a halo pop up?  That
sounds like a generic Morphic thing to me.  Anyway, it's very useful,
and gives Squeak a lot of its flavor.

The named morphs business, where every morph can be given a name and
then searched using morphNamed: ?  I find this nice, especially when
hacking the system via inspectors.

Uniclasses?  I do not use them directly, but I do use "make own
subclass", so I hope that much continues to work.

SmartRefStream and ImageSegment's ?  I frequently upgrade to a new
Squeak image by snapshotting my old workspace and then loading it into
the new one.  I would hate to lose that.  There are also many other
uses of serialization.

Saving projects to the network or to disk?  I guess this is EToys, and
I guess it can be lived without for a suit-wearing programmer writing
shades-of-gray programs.  Nonetheless, it's pretty cool to have
available, although I grant it appears to be a little messy.

The paint tool for bitmap images?  Okay, it's not businessy, and EToys
requires it, but is it really a part of EToys?  I dunno.  I'd sure
hate to lose this tool though.

Flaps, as Goran mentioned?  Flaps are excellent!  I sure hope they do
not go away!



Hmm, I did not start with a point, but seem to have come to a couple.

1. There is no good definition of EToys.  Most of the above things
make sense on their own and have their own pros and cons.  We should
be more specific in this discussion instead of just saying "EToys".
Talking about "the EToys code" is a recipe for a silly discussion.


2. There are several components that could be logically carved out.
Many of the items in the above list should be removable IMHO.
Specifically, I see no reason not to have removable and reloadable
packages for: tile-based programming, the paint tool, and the stuff
for sharing projects on the network.


2b. Several of these seem very much part of Squeak and/or Morphic.
Serialization and uniclasses are core features of Squeak.  Flaps,
halos, and named morphs are core parts of Morphic.


3. I sure wish I had more time to play with Squeak.  :) It would be a
lot of fun to tidy up things in the above list and put them in
individual packages.


-Lex

Hello all,

FWIW, I wish to second some of Lex's points:

Halos are useful for, among other things, moving and closing incomplete
morphs (i.e. morphs that do not yet respond to events or have widgets
needed to do those things on their own), and the ability to cycle
through the z-order is a VERY useful debugging/browsing feature.  Halos
are part of the morphic's foundation.

Named morphs - very useful, and present in other systems (Dolphin's
MVP), also useful for Process, etc.

Serialization is a part of life independent of Etoys.  I am not a big
fan of ReferenceStream, and SmartReferenceStream, but would certainly
keep them separate from EToys.

Paint tool - very useful independent of EToys.  Ditto flaps.

I will stop there; my failure to mention something simply means I am
less passionate about it than the items above, not that I disagree with
Lex's assessment.

Bill




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 Klaus!

"Klaus D. Witzel" <[hidden email]> wrote:
As I know that you now understand my question better (having read the
rest of the thread) I still must ask, why the heat? And what
"conspiracy" are you talking about?

Curious.

regards, Göran

PS. And as for the flaps that you wonder why I want to keep - many
Squeakers use the flaps in various ways. Some probably use the Tools
flap for example, I have also seen people embed a Workspace in a flap in
order to have it handily available. In short - they are useful for other
things than making eToys.

Hi Juan and all!

I just want to say I am 100% with you on all this.

Could you possibly (as you probably know Morphic/eToys better than most
of us) list the parts that we could "decide" about leaving in or ripping
out? Lex started a list, but he also included some things that I had not
thought were included (like ImageSegment for example).

I think it would be a nice way forward in this discussion.

regards, Göran

PS. This subject came up around an OOPSLA hacking table with Dan present
- he also remarked that Morphic is indeed quite small - if you consider
only Morphic itself. But we did not discuss the issue at any great
length. Also Doug applied your recipe to have a look at the result etc.
We never got around to any personal conclusions, though. But I for one
applaud and greatly appreciate your diligence in this matter and I think
it would be GREAT to have a small "isolated" clean Morphic in Squeak
that is maintained and proven. And I am probably not alone in that.

Hi Goran,

on Mon, 30 Oct 2006 00:13:09 +0100, you wrote:
I have not seen any heat in this thread. I was just asking my questions  
(instead of misunderstanding other people's questions and answers) and  
indeed got the information that enlighted me (and others?).

> And what
> "conspiracy" are you talking about?

Well, Pavel's work seems to be not interesting enough for people (like  
you?) to put their hands on and judge themselves. Instead [and (ab-)using  
your PS remarks] it, the work, is questioned. No clear picture. What  
would/could be the reason for a public such a discouragement? If you  
understand tit-for-tat, that's why I put the "conspiracy" word in this  
thread.

> Curious.

Hopefully ;-)

> regards, Göran
>
> PS. And as for the flaps that you wonder why I want to keep - many
> Squeakers use the flaps in various ways. Some probably use the Tools
> flap for example, I have also seen people embed a Workspace in a flap in
> order to have it handily available. In short - they are useful for other
> things than making eToys.

But not for every application. So flaps are an option at best and when  
making things unloadable/reloadable I'd vote for flaps becoming an  
optional package.

/Klaus

Hi Klaus!

"Klaus D. Witzel" <[hidden email]> wrote:
Well, AFAIK you came onto me quite hard asking if I had indeed read what
Pavel wrote etc, and even using capital letters - when in fact you are
the one that got it wrong. Which is fine of course - we all make
mistakes, but why pushing it so hard? For example you write "So how come
you still question it?" etc, no - I don't "question" it. It is just not
relevant in this discussion (for the readers not following this in
detail: since Pavel indeed has not separated eToys from Morphic, which
is the subject at hand).

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your choice of words and tone, so ok,
fine.

> > And what
> > "conspiracy" are you talking about?
>
> Well, Pavel's work seems to be not interesting enough for people (like  
> you?) to put their hands on and judge themselves. Instead [and (ab-)using  
> your PS remarks] it, the work, is questioned. No clear picture. What  
> would/could be the reason for a public such a discouragement? If you  
> understand tit-for-tat, that's why I put the "conspiracy" word in this  
> thread.

Sigh. I am *not* discouraging the work of Pavel - I am actually very
impressed! And btw, I have been advocating Pavel's work in other
contexts etc, so no - I am definitely not part of any "conspiracy"
against Pavel - though I sincerely doubt there is such a thing. :)

But the point remains - we are discussing the *separation* between
Morphic and eToys. Pavel has made Morphic+eToys unloadable/reloadable -
but that is a totally different story IMHO, albeit an interesting one.

I agree in theory, but as for the actual practicality I leave that to
Juan.
When arguing for flaps I was more thinking along the lines of what kind
of Morphic experience we would like to have in the "default" dev image -
and I can imagine we want flaps to be in there. But I agree - if it can
be made a loadable package I am all with ya.
 
> /Klaus

regards, Göran

Hi Goran,

on Mon, 30 Oct 2006 13:24:40 +0100, you wrote:
I asked this silly one because it seemed to me that Pavel wrote at the  
time between: (your message to me) and: (my response to you). This was not  
meant hard, just a "have you seen it".

> and even using capital letters

... for which I excused me in advance. No need to stress this again.

  - when in fact you are
> the one that got it wrong.

This was nothing about me getting something right or wrong. I started this  
thread in order to understand. Please point me to what I got wrong in

-  
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-October/110648.html

and/or what I got wrong in

-  
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-October/110707.html

> Which is fine of course - we all make
> mistakes,

How can I be wrong by asking questions? I do not tolerate you blame me  
"making mistakes" when I post questions.

> but why pushing it so hard?

It is perhaps so that you and I got confused (somehow) on utility of  
Pavel's work.

> For example you write "So how come
> you still question it?" etc, no - I don't "question" it.

O.K. I respect what you write here in response to my question. Thank you.

> It is just not
> relevant in this discussion (for the readers not following this in
> detail: since Pavel indeed has not separated eToys from Morphic, which
> is the subject at hand).

Well, I read the sentence with the "relevance" word as: you're reflecting  
on yourself. No comment, could possibly cause confusion.

> Perhaps I am misunderstanding your choice of words and tone, so ok,
> fine.

That's quite possible. And it's also possible that I misunderstood your  
remarks on Pavel's good work.

I want to point out that [part of] my intention was to understand why  
Pavel's good work would not be relevant, and this question *is* subject in  
this thread.

Great! Will value your words by the actions that will be seen in the  
future - no offense intended!

> so no - I am definitely not part of any "conspiracy"
> against Pavel - though I sincerely doubt there is such a thing. :)

O.K. I respect your doubts. (BTW and OT: a "conspiracy" is not a  
conspiracy.)

> But the point remains - we are discussing the *separation* between
> Morphic and eToys.

This was not so at the beginning of this thread (and so perhaps caused  
some confusion, between you and me). I agree that *separation* is [part  
of] the outcome of this thread.

> Pavel has made Morphic+eToys unloadable/reloadable -
> but that is a totally different story IMHO, albeit an interesting one.

I disagree, since I asked for the whatabouts of this story. This is  
perhaps why you felt I was asking so hard (you and me had different  
stories). For your convenience, I repeat from my very first message:

quote "I'm neither a proponent nor an opponent of removing Etoys, Morphic,  
etc. Instead, I'm wondering what this debate might be about ..." unquote.

O.K. let Juan the maker decide what he puts his hands on.

> When arguing for flaps I was more thinking along the lines of what kind
> of Morphic experience we would like to have in the "default" dev image -
> and I can imagine we want flaps to be in there.

Sure, me too can imagine that the developers want to use flaps.

> But I agree - if it can
> be made a loadable package I am all with ya.

Now *this* was [part of] what this thread was about :)

/Klaus

Hi Goran!

[hidden email] escribió:
> Hi Juan and all!
>
> I just want to say I am 100% with you on all this.
>  
Thanks. It's nice to know that.
> Could you possibly (as you probably know Morphic/eToys better than most
> of us) list the parts that we could "decide" about leaving in or ripping
> out? Lex started a list, but he also included some things that I had not
> thought were included (like ImageSegment for example).
>  
To me eToys what you can find in the eToys package. That's why I put it
there!

Going thru Lex's list. (Lex, I didn't answer to your post because I
think the list should be built by the community, and I didn't want to
sound authoritative on this!)
- Tile based programming system. Yes. The central part of eToys.
- Halos. No. Halos are key to Morphic.
- Named morph search. No. I'd put this in 'MorphicExtras'.
- Uniclasses. Yes. They were implemented in Squeak to support eToys. And
they are not Smalltalky to me. However, 'make own subclass' is not
eTtoys, and distinct from uniclasses to me.
- SmartRefStream and ImageSegments. No! Why would they?
- Projects and saving projects. No.
- Paint tool. No.
- Flaps. No.

Anyway, I don't want to say what should be removed and what should not.
But clearly in my reduced 3.7 image, I removed lots of stuff besides eToys.
Let me repeat: To me eToys what it is in the eToys package.
> I think it would be a nice way forward in this discussion.
>
> regards, Göran
>
> PS. This subject came up around an OOPSLA hacking table with Dan present
> - he also remarked that Morphic is indeed quite small - if you consider
> only Morphic itself.
:)
> But we did not discuss the issue at any great
> length. Also Doug applied your recipe to have a look at the result etc.
>  
Doug, I'd like to know what were your impressions on this!
> We never got around to any personal conclusions, though. But I for one
> applaud and greatly appreciate your diligence in this matter and I think
> it would be GREAT to have a small "isolated" clean Morphic in Squeak
> that is maintained and proven. And I am probably not alone in that.
>
>  

Well, I hope you're interested in my Morphic 3.0 project then. It is my
vision for morphic improvement. Check www.jvuletich.org !

Cheers,
Juan Vuletich