Removing Etoys, Morphic and other friends
Locked
12345
12345
Re: Removing Etoys, Morphic and other friends
 
|
Hi Klaus!
(this thread is really beaten to death, but whatever - let's beat it some more!) For the rest - this is a meta-post. We just blabber on about ourselves misunderstanding each other in order to get as far away from the subject as possible! :) :) (a joke) "Klaus D. Witzel" <[hidden email]> wrote: [SNIP] > >> 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?). > > > > Well, AFAIK you came onto me quite hard asking if I had indeed read what > > Pavel wrote etc > > 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. Fine, just pointing out what I meant with "heat". > - 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. Fine, then please don't accuse me of "questioning" Pavel's work or "discouraging" it or whatever, because I have done no such thing. Ever. On the contrary. > Please point me to what I got wrong in > > - > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-October/110648.html AFAICT you got nothing "wrong" there - even though I don't agree with you. :) (another story) > and/or what I got wrong in > > - > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-October/110707.html Nothing wrong - it just contains questions AFAICT. > > 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. I was referring to this post: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-October/110 685.html In which I think you "got it wrong" about what Pavel has and has not done etc. > > 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. Your question states that I do indeed question something, which I don't. Ok? > > 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. I don't follow, but it doesn't matter I guess. > > 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. Sure, but why didn't you just ASK that then instead of rambling about me questioning it and a conspiracy and what not? > >> > 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, > > Great! Will value your words by the actions that will be seen in the > future - no offense intended! Likewise. Even though I have no idea why you have any reason to doubt my word. > > 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.) Lost you. > > 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. Ehm, well, you started this particular subject (I think) - but you referred to the *ongoing debate* which was AFAIK started by Juan in this post: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-October/110 359.html So I was pretty convinced that *this* is what we are talking about. And since I felt people were talking in circles I took the liberty of clarifying the subject in this post: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2006-October/110 678.html Which Pavel also verified later (that he has not separated eToys from Morphic). > > 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. And I repeat from your first message (which definitely was not the first in the *debate*): "Instead, I'm wondering what this debate might be about (myth? conspiracy? who in squeak-dev knows ;-)" And thus I tried explaining to you (and others) *what this debate* is about indeed. > >> > 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. > > > > I agree in theory, but as for the actual practicality I leave that to > > Juan. > > O.K. let Juan the maker decide what he puts his hands on. Right - doers decide, and he just posted with a very good list IMHO. I agree with it 100%, again. :) > > 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 :) Flaps? Then I am totally lost. ;) > /Klaus I really think we got it off in a strange way here - I have no idea why. I really just want the best from all of us, I really don't question anyones work, I really don't think there is any conspiracy going on, and I really am just one of us. regards, Göran |
I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you? (was Re: Removing Etoys, Morphic and other friends)
|
|
In reply to this post by Juan Vuletich (dc)
Hi all!
Since it feels that we are getting more concrete here I decided to rename the subject. Perhaps people join up in the discussion again. :) Juan Vuletich <[hidden email]> wrote: > 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. Though I am just one of "us" you know. :) But yes, it is nice to feel that people agree - and as I said I am all with you for three major reasons: 1. You are a doer. You have already proved that. 2. You are committed to this. We don't have many people committed to Morphic development (on this low level) these days and I value each and every one highly. 3. You have a plan. And my principle is that if someone is itching to improve something and has the above 3 things, then there is not much to argue about - I say go. :) > > 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. I think this list sounds perfect to me. > 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 ! I am. Let me put this interest in some perspective btw: 1. Morphic is proven to work. But seems to be in a mess and thus is brittle and also not maintained much because people can't get a grip and are also appalled about lots of the stuff that is in there today (eToys related I think). So it is sitting still today. Btw, this is MY primary objective behind getting eToys out - because I want a more attractive Morphic that then might get maintained instead of just sit there. 2. Tweak came along and people interested in these things probably decided to hang around and wait to see if Tweak would end up replacing Morphic in "official Squeak". Now it seems to not go that route, at least not in a hurry. I love the fact that we have Tweak and new ideas etc, but perhaps it is time to grab what we have and make the best of it instead of waiting for Tweak. So... Juan stepping up and offering his time to produce a clean, maintainable and rejuvenated Morphic is IMHO Right On Cue. I hope that people raise their voices and give him their support. I then hope that the next release team (3 people that we still do not know who they are) considers giving Juan a slot in 3.10 for this rejuvenation, and I also hope that the board show their support in this. And I hope that Juan is willing to take on the Steward role for Morphic together with a few more brave souls with an interest in Morphic (there are a few I think). I bet perhaps even Dan Ingalls could be interested, but he might be too busy at work. > Cheers, > Juan Vuletich regards, Göran |
Re: I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you? (was Re: Removing Etoys, Morphic and other friends)
|
|
I don't support what Juan's proposal as stated. I'd like to hear why you, Juan or anyone else don't agree with what Jecel/Guy proposed
>if we can unload eToys but not load it back, then let's just include eToys in the >full image that we distribute and allow everyone the one way option of >removing it. which mirrors what I said in "Smalltalk Reloaded". More specifically, do folks supporting Juan's proposal disagree with my statement: >All other considerations aside, if e-toys is unloaded from the main distribution and cannot be easily reloaded by a new Squeaker,there will be confusion and for many disappointment and/or some other non-positive experience. For me it's not that I'm opposed to a cleaner Morphic, I just don't want to add stumbling blocks for wider acceptance at a time when eToy images are getting more and more visibility. Sure it would be nice to see the default image with a cleaner Morphic but not at any price - especially since Spoon is coming. It's not clear to me whether the upside of a cleaner Morphic will be that great or long lasting because I believe we're in the early stages of a big paradigm shift in which Croquet UI(oh where is Wicket?) is where the action is. In this new paradigm, I don't know whether a cleaner Morphic is going to have advantages over Tweak. Cheers, Laurence On 10/31/06, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi all! |
Re: I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you? (was Re: Removing Etoys, Morphic and other friends)
|
|
Hi!
"Laurence Rozier" <[hidden email]> wrote: > I don't support what Juan's proposal as stated. I'd like to hear why you, > Juan or anyone else don't agree with what Jecel/Guy proposed Ok, let me quote so that you don't need to skip back, Jecel wrote: > This is a plan that is practical and which I fully support: if we can > unload eToys but not load it back, then let's just include eToys in the > full image that we distribute and allow everyone the one way option of > removing it. I don't mind at all eliminating the Flash logo, the welcome > windows and other stuff every time I begin working with a newly > downloaded image. The fact that I can't get any of these easily back if > I want has never been a problem since I could just start over from a > clean image. > > Sure, a reloadable eToys would be even better but I doubt it will > happen. My problem with that proposal is that it means that Morphic is actually not cleaned up - it would just persist as it is today. It also means that any cleanup that such a removal-script would do in itself (and Juan has already said that such a delta script is NOT easy to maintain IIRC) would actually fork Morphic itself - people writing code on top of Morphic in the future would have to wonder if it is being run in the image-with-a-clean-morphic-without-etoys or in the image-with-etoys. In other words, the above sounds like either "status quo" or a fork of Morphic. I dislike both. :) Note that eToys is not a clean "addon" on top of Morphic - it is in fact an intertwined mess with Morphic methods including lots of logic specifically for eToys. So if you clean out eToys you end up with a different Morphic. I think it would be much better to lift the burden of eToys, let Juan do his magic and give us an improved Morphic in the baseline - let anyone step up and retrofit eToys on top of that as a cleaner addon, or not. In either case - Squeakland is the place to go for eToys and has always been. > >if we can unload eToys but not load it back, then let's just include eToys > in the > >full image that we distribute and allow everyone the one way option of > >removing it. > > which mirrors what I said in "Smalltalk Reloaded". More specifically, do > folks supporting Juan's proposal disagree with my statement: > > >All other considerations aside, if e-toys is unloaded from the main > distribution and cannot be easily reloaded by a new Squeaker,there will be > confusion and for many disappointment and/or some other non-positive > experience. I am not sure I agree with this. Thing is, eToys in the "main distro" (squeak.org) has been relatively unmaintained for some time I think (others with better knowledge might disagree). I personally would not trust eToys in official Squeak to work as one would expect it to work relative to the Squeakland image. And this goes especially for 3.9 and beyond, since Squeakland is 3.8 based. So to rephrase myself - if we aim to minimize the risk of a non-positive experience of eToys I think we should clearly and distinctly direct people towards the Squeakland distro directly from the main page of Squeak.org for those people looking specifically for eToys. > For me it's not that I'm opposed to a cleaner Morphic, I just don't want to > add stumbling blocks for wider acceptance at a time when eToy images are > getting more and more visibility. Sure it would be nice to see the default > image with a cleaner Morphic but not at any price - especially since Spoon > is coming. Mmmm, I don't see how Spoon relates technically to a cleanup of Morphic. I consider those two efforts quite separate. > It's not clear to me whether the upside of a cleaner Morphic wil= > l > be that great or long lasting because I believe we're in the early stages o= > f > a big paradigm shift in which Croquet > UI<http://www.meshverse.com/2006/10/18/the-64-billion-dollar-question-reloa= > ded/>(oh > where is Wicket?) is where the action is. In this new paradigm, I don't kno= > w > whether a cleaner Morphic is going to have advantages over Tweak. It is not so much about which is "best". Tweak is radically different, and many of those ideas are great (AFAICT). I have on the other hand heard people moaning about it being hard to debug and as we all know - it is not "ready" for Squeak.org yet. Again AFAIK. I don't think we should sit around and wait for Tweak to save the day - we have already done so to a certain extent and I think we should stop doing that. Morphic is nice and it can be small and lean too. Juan offers to give us that and I think that is great. Also - yes, the Squeaklanders did spend time to update eToys in 3.8 with the changes that were done in the Squeakland image. But will they keep that up? I am very unsure about that, would be neat to hear more from Michael Rueger (or someone) on that issue. If they indeed have an intention of maintaining eToys in 3.9 and beyond (which I doubt) then that would indeed make the question more complicated. > Cheers, > > Laurence regards, Göran PS. I don't claim the almighty truth - these are just my opinions based on my perceptions and hunches. :) |
Re: Removing Etoys, Morphic and other friends
|
|
In reply to this post by Göran Krampe
Hi folks,
on Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:46:31 +0100, Goran wrote: > Hi Klaus! > > (this thread is really beaten to death, but whatever - let's beat it > some more!) > > For the rest - this is a meta-post. We just blabber on about ourselves > misunderstanding each other in order to get as far away from the subject > as possible! :) :) (a joke) So the two of us decided to settle the meta-issues in harmony and did so despite of a mail blocking "spam firewall" :) Everybody enjoy the rest of the debate about Etoys, Morphic and other friends ;-) /Klaus |
Re: I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you? (was Re: Removing Etoys, Morphic and other friends)
|
|
In reply to this post by Göran Krampe
Hi Goran,
I don't. I am with Guy, Jecel, Klaus and probably many others. On Oct 31, 2006, at 1:15 PM, [hidden email] wrote: > Hi! > > "Laurence Rozier" <[hidden email]> wrote: >> I don't support what Juan's proposal as stated. I'd like to hear >> why you, >> Juan or anyone else don't agree with what Jecel/Guy proposed > > Ok, let me quote so that you don't need to skip back, Jecel wrote: > >> This is a plan that is practical and which I fully support: if we can >> unload eToys but not load it back, then let's just include eToys >> in the >> full image that we distribute and allow everyone the one way >> option of >> removing it. I don't mind at all eliminating the Flash logo, the >> welcome >> windows and other stuff every time I begin working with a newly >> downloaded image. The fact that I can't get any of these easily >> back if >> I want has never been a problem since I could just start over from a >> clean image. >> >> Sure, a reloadable eToys would be even better but I doubt it will >> happen. > +1 > My problem with that proposal is that it means that Morphic is > actually > not cleaned up - it would just persist as it is today. Yes, but as long as we don't have sth. cleaned up, I don't see the point in removing the part of Squeak which will be actually the killer application of Squeak - being installed on millions of machines on the OLPC. Several others - newbies and old-time squeakers - have mentioned their interest in Etoys being included in the main squeak-dev. If people/ kids using the OLPC or Squeaklanders come to squeak-dev and see this essential part removed, they will be puzzled about it and we will have difficulties to explain the issue to them. I also strongly support the view of Ron Teitelbaum who thinks removing Etoys to be a fork. Marcus was able to rip of some changesets for speeding up Squeak 3.9 for inclusion in the olpc- version, I doubt that these synergetic effects will become easier in the future by removing Etoys. Show us an improved version of Etoys which can substitute the current one and I am all for _replacing_ the current with a new, tidier, and _faster_ one than we currently have. Let the "gothic" people build their streamlined minimal cathedrals as easy as possible, but don't forget us barrock, playfull ones, until we come up with something truly modern. Concerning Juan's point >>> Removing eToys implies deleting "eToys awareness" in lots of >>> methods that would not be deleted. Even several instance >>> variables as in MorphExtension. I don't know how to offer the >>> user the option for removing it, let alone keep that option >>> properly maintained in future Squeak versions. I think, that overwriting would be allowed in the removal process. Maintaining Squeak _with_ some form of Etoys is easier and more important than maintaining it without them. And as Bert stated, making Etoys reloadable is a hard if not impossible task. Cheers, Markus |
Re: I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you? (was Re: Removing Etoys, Morphic and other friends)
|
|
In reply to this post by Göran Krampe
[hidden email] wrote:
>> This is a plan that is practical and which I fully support: if we can >> unload eToys but not load it back, then let's just include eToys in the >> full image that we distribute and allow everyone the one way option of >> removing it. I don't mind at all eliminating the Flash logo, the welcome >> windows and other stuff every time I begin working with a newly >> downloaded image. The fact that I can't get any of these easily back if >> I want has never been a problem since I could just start over from a >> clean image. >> >> Sure, a reloadable eToys would be even better but I doubt it will >> happen. > > My problem with that proposal is that it means that Morphic is actually > not cleaned up - it would just persist as it is today. as I see it, my problem with *your* proposal is that we need to dump eToys in order to gain a cleaned-up Morphic. to me "code cleanup" does not mean that any functionality is lost. only that the code is cleaned up. maybe I am too simple-minded :) so your proposal is to kill etoys, which currently work just fine and is used by many people, for the only reason that it does not seem to be easy to clean it up. we had "if it's not broken, don't fix it", now it seems we have "if it's not broken but ugly, then just kill it". this is utter nonsense. I just don't understand where we are going here. why destroy Squeak ? Stef |
Re: I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you? (was Re: Removing Etoys, Morphic and other friends)
|
|
Hi folks!
=?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=E9phane_Rollandin?= <[hidden email]> wrote: > this is utter nonsense. I just don't understand where we are going here. > why destroy Squeak ? Ok, I have for various reasons decided to drop out of this discussion. I don't think I will be able to make my arguments and views any more clear than the "nonsense" I have produced so far, and since I seem to be the only one publically supporting Juan (perhaps there were a few more) I am clearly outnumbered. And I don't feel encouraged to keep discussing it this particular way, no - I don't know why we should destroy Squeak btw. And I should be doing other things anyway. ;) The rest of squeak-dev will simply have to (and the board IMHO) figure this one out. regards, Göran PS. I am kinda tired of the fact that hardly any change can be proposed in this community without having tons of arguments raised against it. Sure, this particular case is harder to judge - but the fact remains, how can we keep all the Juans out there interested if they only meet resistance when offering their time and energy? Sure, the medicine does not taste good - dumping eToys hurts, I know that. But this problem is generic. And no, don't bother replying to me specifically about this because I don't have the energy to discuss anything right now. |
RE: I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you? (was Re: Removing Etoys, Morphic and other friends)
|
|
In reply to this post by Göran Krampe
All,
I stand by the suggestion of either replacing Morphic and Etoys with Tweak and Tweaks EToy implementation, since there is significant work going into both, or adding a script that removes eToys from the main image upon developer request. If a further development of Morphic is wanted and that development requires the removal of eToys from the main image, I support that also. In other words if we want Morphic 3.0 then the developer is required to unload eToys and then load Morphic 3.0 into their own image. I do not support removing eToys from the main image without replacing it with Tweak and the new OLPC eToys. The reason for my position is that I support community bridges which I have discussed at length in previous postings. My suggestion for 3.10 is to work towards consolidating current advancements from all platforms, Tweak, eToys, Croquet and OLPC into Squeak's main image. This follows the suggestion of finding work that is already completed and ready for inclusion into the main image. A question for Juan, can your Morphic 3.0 advancements be applied to Tweak? Ron Teitelbaum > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] [mailto:squeak-dev- > [hidden email]] On Behalf Of [hidden email] > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 3:03 AM > To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list > Subject: I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you? (was Re: Removing > Etoys,Morphic and other friends) > > Hi all! > > Since it feels that we are getting more concrete here I decided to > rename the subject. Perhaps people join up in the discussion again. :) > > Juan Vuletich <[hidden email]> wrote: > > 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. > > Though I am just one of "us" you know. :) But yes, it is nice to feel > that people agree - and as I said I am all with you for three major > reasons: > > 1. You are a doer. You have already proved that. > 2. You are committed to this. We don't have many people committed to > Morphic development (on this low level) these days and I value each and > every one highly. > 3. You have a plan. > > And my principle is that if someone is itching to improve something and > has the above 3 things, then there is not much to argue about - I say > go. :) > > > > 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. > > I think this list sounds perfect to me. > > > 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 ! > > I am. Let me put this interest in some perspective btw: > > 1. Morphic is proven to work. But seems to be in a mess and thus is > brittle and also not maintained much because people can't get a grip and > are also appalled about lots of the stuff that is in there today (eToys > related I think). So it is sitting still today. Btw, this is MY primary > objective behind getting eToys out - because I want a more attractive > Morphic that then might get maintained instead of just sit there. > > 2. Tweak came along and people interested in these things probably > decided to hang around and wait to see if Tweak would end up replacing > Morphic in "official Squeak". Now it seems to not go that route, at > least not in a hurry. I love the fact that we have Tweak and new ideas > etc, but perhaps it is time to grab what we have and make the best of it > instead of waiting for Tweak. > > So... Juan stepping up and offering his time to produce a clean, > maintainable and rejuvenated Morphic is IMHO Right On Cue. > > I hope that people raise their voices and give him their support. > I then hope that the next release team (3 people that we still do not > know who they are) considers giving Juan a slot in 3.10 for this > rejuvenation, and I also hope that the board show their support in this. > And I hope that Juan is willing to take on the Steward role for Morphic > together with a few more brave souls with an interest in Morphic (there > are a few I think). I bet perhaps even Dan Ingalls could be interested, > but he might be too busy at work. > > > Cheers, > > Juan Vuletich > > regards, Göran > |
Re: I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you? (was Re: Removing Etoys, Morphic and other friends)
|
|
Hi,
I just wanted to state something that I think most of all proponents of keeping etoys are missing. Sorry in advance if its not the case or this statement of mine sound a little harsh. (please blame my lack of a better english, and time to write it better) I kept reading and reading this thread and the other ones related to it, and everybody who asked to keep etoys on squeak-dev seemed to me that they were not aware that the currently etoy image isn't the current squeak-dev. If you want to use etoys you need to use the squeakland image. While its true that etoys works on 3.9, remember that the maintainance of etoys is done on the squeakland image (which is not even a squeak-dev 3.8 image, only one based on it) So what I don't understand is why everybody insists on using etoys in squeak-dev 3.9, when the people behind etoys don't use, nor maintain, nor can make any kind of assurance about etoys in 3.9. In fact I think its contraproducent to keep etoys in this setup. Because we risk that anyone wanting to use squeak because of etoys, they might have a bad etoy experience because they are using 3.9. I, on the other hand, would always direct all the people interested in etoys to an squeakland image instead. Lastly I would like to ask Ron, Klaus, Jecel, Lex, Marcus, and the other people that on this thread said that wanted to keep etoys if they have considered this issue and I would like to know what they think. Again. Apologies if my mail didn't sound right. I am just curious and no offense was meant to anyone. Regards, Hernán On 10/31/06, Ron Teitelbaum <[hidden email]> wrote: All, -- Saludos, Hernán |
Re: I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you? (was Re: Removing Etoys, Morphic and other friends)
|
|
In reply to this post by Göran Krampe
On 10/31/06, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi folks! Hi Goran, I know that you don't want to continue this, and that you don't want anyone to reply but anyways :) I think that we should stop trying to try to reach concensus on these things. Lets allow to have multiple squeak-dev images, don't make any one official, just make all equally public with good descriptions and be done with it. My 0.02 cents -- Saludos, Hernán |
RE: I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you? (was Re: Removing Etoys, Morphic and other friends)
|
|
In reply to this post by Hernan Tylim-2
Hi Hernán,
That is a perfectly reasonable question. My main concern is collaboration and community. While I support Juan and would like to know more about his work, it is very difficult for me to believe that Juan will be able to provide more of an advancement for Squeak then Tweak and Croquet will. eToys is today is a bridge, even if it is outdated. Morphic in my opinion may be good for development tools, but fails to provide an interface that is usable for more then that. The question is should we move Morphic forward without eToys so that it meets the requirements of users. My answer is that we have not listened to users enough to know, we have not engaged enough resources to make it worth while and we have not proven that our efforts will produce more then the large scale development which is Tweak and Croquet will. Does it make sense to work with and incorporate these new developments into Squeak? Yes I believe it does. I would like to see Juan and other Squeak developers work towards getting Tweak ready and include it in Squeak. This would be the best of both worlds, we could then better support Croquet out of the box, and we would have a new cleaner Morphic model and eToys that squeakland could help support. I also support greater control and participation of the volunteer community. I know that we are in transition and these issues are very important to everyone. While I support greater independence I believe the only way that the community at large will progress is if we find a way to organize our efforts in a way that allows us to provide valuable contributions. That involves greater user engagement, and in my opinion, a greater focus on useful applications, or tools/components to build applications. I do not support cutting off our founders to gain that control and, as I have said earlier, I believe that the competition and tension that these competing groups create is a good thing. Can Morphic 3.0 be implemented in Tweak? Ron Teitelbaum ________________________________________ From: Hernan Tylim Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 10:59 AM Hi, I just wanted to state something that I think most of all proponents of keeping etoys are missing. Sorry in advance if its not the case or this statement of mine sound a little harsh. (please blame my lack of a better english, and time to write it better) I kept reading and reading this thread and the other ones related to it, and everybody who asked to keep etoys on squeak-dev seemed to me that they were not aware that the currently etoy image isn't the current squeak-dev. If you want to use etoys you need to use the squeakland image. While its true that etoys works on 3.9, remember that the maintainance of etoys is done on the squeakland image (which is not even a squeak-dev 3.8 image, only one based on it) So what I don't understand is why everybody insists on using etoys in squeak-dev 3.9, when the people behind etoys don't use, nor maintain, nor can make any kind of assurance about etoys in 3.9. In fact I think its contraproducent to keep etoys in this setup. Because we risk that anyone wanting to use squeak because of etoys, they might have a bad etoy experience because they are using 3.9. I, on the other hand, would always direct all the people interested in etoys to an squeakland image instead. Lastly I would like to ask Ron, Klaus, Jecel, Lex, Marcus, and the other people that on this thread said that wanted to keep etoys if they have considered this issue and I would like to know what they think. Again. Apologies if my mail didn't sound right. I am just curious and no offense was meant to anyone. Regards, Hernán On 10/31/06, Ron Teitelbaum <[hidden email]> wrote: All, I stand by the suggestion of either replacing Morphic and Etoys with Tweak and Tweaks EToy implementation, since there is significant work going into both, or adding a script that removes eToys from the main image upon developer request. If a further development of Morphic is wanted and that development requires the removal of eToys from the main image, I support that also. In other words if we want Morphic 3.0 then the developer is required to unload eToys and then load Morphic 3.0 into their own image. I do not support removing eToys from the main image without replacing it with Tweak and the new OLPC eToys. The reason for my position is that I support community bridges which I have discussed at length in previous postings. My suggestion for 3.10 is to work towards consolidating current advancements from all platforms, Tweak, eToys, Croquet and OLPC into Squeak's main image. This follows the suggestion of finding work that is already completed and ready for inclusion into the main image. A question for Juan, can your Morphic 3.0 advancements be applied to Tweak? Ron Teitelbaum > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] [mailto:squeak-dev- > [hidden email]] On Behalf Of [hidden email] > Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 3:03 AM > To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list > Subject: I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you? (was Re: Removing > Etoys,Morphic and other friends) > > Hi all! > > Since it feels that we are getting more concrete here I decided to > rename the subject. Perhaps people join up in the discussion again. :) > > Juan Vuletich < [hidden email]> wrote: > > 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. > > Though I am just one of "us" you know. :) But yes, it is nice to feel > that people agree - and as I said I am all with you for three major > reasons: > > 1. You are a doer. You have already proved that. > 2. You are committed to this. We don't have many people committed to > Morphic development (on this low level) these days and I value each and > every one highly. > 3. You have a plan. > > And my principle is that if someone is itching to improve something and > has the above 3 things, then there is not much to argue about - I say > go. :) > > > > 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. > > I think this list sounds perfect to me. > > > 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 ! > > I am. Let me put this interest in some perspective btw: > > 1. Morphic is proven to work. But seems to be in a mess and thus is > brittle and also not maintained much because people can't get a grip and > are also appalled about lots of the stuff that is in there today (eToys > related I think). So it is sitting still today. Btw, this is MY primary > objective behind getting eToys out - because I want a more attractive > Morphic that then might get maintained instead of just sit there. > > 2. Tweak came along and people interested in these things probably > decided to hang around and wait to see if Tweak would end up replacing > Morphic in "official Squeak". Now it seems to not go that route, at > least not in a hurry. I love the fact that we have Tweak and new ideas > etc, but perhaps it is time to grab what we have and make the best of it > instead of waiting for Tweak. > > So... Juan stepping up and offering his time to produce a clean, > maintainable and rejuvenated Morphic is IMHO Right On Cue. > > I hope that people raise their voices and give him their support. > I then hope that the next release team (3 people that we still do not > know who they are) considers giving Juan a slot in 3.10 for this > rejuvenation, and I also hope that the board show their support in this. > And I hope that Juan is willing to take on the Steward role for Morphic > together with a few more brave souls with an interest in Morphic (there > are a few I think). I bet perhaps even Dan Ingalls could be interested, > but he might be too busy at work. > > > Cheers, > > Juan Vuletich > > regards, Göran > -- Saludos, Hernán |
Re: I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you? (was Re: Removing Etoys, Morphic and other friends)
|
|
In reply to this post by Hernan Tylim-2
Hi Hernan,
> So what I don't understand is why everybody insists on using etoys > in squeak-dev 3.9, when the people behind etoys don't use, nor > maintain, nor can make any kind of assurance about etoys in 3.9. Because I truly believe that this is lack of energy and _not_ lack of good will on their part. We should strive to bring them back and not to exclude them. Having all the tools available for 3.9 helps the etoys developers as much as the seaside developers. So I fully support Ron's view: >> My suggestion for 3.10 is to work towards consolidating current >> advancements >> from all platforms, Tweak, eToys, Croquet and OLPC into Squeak's >> main image. >> This follows the suggestion of finding work that is already >> completed and >> ready for inclusion into the main image. Having universes from Lex should support us in doing so. > > In fact I think its contraproducent to keep etoys in this setup. > Because we risk that anyone wanting to use squeak because of etoys, > they might have a bad etoy experience because they are using 3.9. > I, on the other hand, would always direct all the people interested > in etoys to an squeakland image instead. > > Lastly I would like to ask Ron, Klaus, Jecel, Lex, Marcus, This would be Markus in that case... ;-) > and the other people that on this thread said that wanted to keep > etoys if they have considered this issue and I would like to know > what they think. Again. Apologies if my mail didn't sound right. I > am just curious and no offense was meant to anyone. Cheers, Markus |
Re: I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you? (was Re: Removing Etoys, Morphic and other friends)
|
|
In reply to this post by Hernan Tylim-2
Hernan Tylim wrote on Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:59:14 -0300
> I just wanted to state something that I think most of all proponents of keeping > etoys are missing. Sorry in advance if its not the case or this statement of mine > sound a little harsh. (please blame my lack of a better english, and time to write > it better) > > I kept reading and reading this thread and the other ones related to it, and > everybody who asked to keep etoys on squeak-dev seemed to me that they > were not aware that the currently etoy image isn't the current squeak-dev. > If you want to use etoys you need to use the squeakland image. Perhaps it would be better to say "it is recommended that you use the Squeakland image". > While its true that etoys works on 3.9, remember that the maintainance of > etoys is done on the squeakland image (which is not even a squeak-dev 3.8 > image, only one based on it) While it is natural that you have this impression, my own impression is a bit different (it might be wrong). I see the following options available to someone wanting to use eToys: Squeak 3.9 Squeakland (based on 3.8) SmallLand (based on 3.8) OLPC (based on the Squeakland one) This last option is the one that has the latest fixes and enhancements to eToys but I am not sure that there is no plan to make this stuff available to the others. My impression is that the current situation is more due to the urgent deadlines of the OLPC project than to some plan to fork things. > So what I don't understand is why everybody insists on using etoys in squeak-dev > 3.9, when the people behind etoys don't use, nor maintain, nor can make any kind > of assurance about etoys in 3.9. I looked back at the last couple of month's discussions in this list and found people speculating what the plans of the Squeakland group are but not actual details from people in a position to know. So I will avoid guessing myself and will wait to hear from them. > In fact I think its contraproducent to keep etoys in this setup. Because we risk that > anyone wanting to use squeak because of etoys, they might have a bad etoy > experience because they are using 3.9. I, on the other hand, would always direct > all the people interested in etoys to an squeakland image instead. Having helped people on the #squeak IRC channel who were following some tutorials about eToys and Kedama I agree this can be a problem. But telling them to get a Squeakland image is not always a good solution. > Lastly I would like to ask Ron, Klaus, Jecel, Lex, Marcus, and the other people > that on this thread said that wanted to keep etoys if they have considered this issue > and I would like to know what they think. Again. Apologies if my mail didn't sound > right. I am just curious and no offense was meant to anyone. What I want to avoid is a squeak-dev / squeakland fork. If this has already happened (in a definitive way, temporary forks happen all the time) then all my arguments are silly and should be ignored. -- Jecel |
Re: I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you? (was Re: Removing Etoys, Morphic and other friends)
|
|
In reply to this post by Göran Krampe
[hidden email] wrote:
> Hi folks! > > =?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=E9phane_Rollandin?= <[hidden email]> wrote: >> this is utter nonsense. I just don't understand where we are going here. >> why destroy Squeak ? > > Ok, I have for various reasons decided to drop out of this discussion. > > I don't think I will be able to make my arguments and views any more > clear than the "nonsense" I have produced so far, and since I seem to be > the only one publically supporting Juan (perhaps there were a few more) > I am clearly outnumbered. And I don't feel encouraged to keep discussing > it this particular way, no - I don't know why we should destroy Squeak > btw. > > And I should be doing other things anyway. ;) > > The rest of squeak-dev will simply have to (and the board IMHO) figure > this one out. > > regards, Göran > > PS. I am kinda tired of the fact that hardly any change can be proposed > in this community without having tons of arguments raised against it. > Sure, this particular case is harder to judge - but the fact remains, > how can we keep all the Juans out there interested if they only meet > resistance when offering their time and energy? Sure, the medicine does > not taste good - dumping eToys hurts, I know that. But this problem is > generic. And no, don't bother replying to me specifically about this > because I don't have the energy to discuss anything right now. Hello All, I lurk most of the time but have played with Squeak and been on the list a long time. :) I too would love to see Juan's Morphic in Pavel's image. It has already been expressly stated that those who use eToys do not use the 3.9+ images. So the bug fixes, improvements, etc to eToys do not occur in 3.9 but in the Squeakland image. So those who want eToys truly will want the Squeakland image. I cannot verify this but it would naively seem that there is already a divergence between eToys in Squeakland and eToys in the main image. I believe that divergence will only increase. I presume things change with regard to eToys and potentially Morphic in the Squeakland version which do not make to the 3.9 image. I could be wrong. But unless someone makes the effort to track both and insure that those things get brought back to 3.9+ then they are lost to the 3.9+ users. It would seem this is already the case. It seems that the fact is that if you want eToys don't use 3.9+. Use the Squeakland image. Pavel and Juan have done nothing to hurt or harm Squeak. What people can do with Squeak only increased not decreased. We already have image forks. Lots of them. People already pick which image they want. Every release is technically to a certain extent a fork and is used as such by people. There are people here who use a 3.7 image, some a 3.8.1 image, some the 3.9 image, some the new Developers image, the Squeakland image, the Pier image, the Seaside image, etc. If Squeakland's image has changes to Morphic and eToys that are not in the 3.9+ image, then we no longer truly have a "Full image" because what was once considered a part of that image is no longer present. It would seem the only route to such an image is to either port the changes from one to the other. Which direction is easier I can't say. But no one to my knowledge has formulated such a plan nor has stepped up to the plate to do it. So it seems to me that the pro eToys side is a vote for the status quo, because their is no one doing anything to actively pursue Morphic and eToy maintenance current with Squeakland. On the cleaner Morphic and smaller image side we have some people voting with their time and effort. I am not trying to offend anyone and my apologies if I do so, it is most definitely not my intent. Nor am I attempting to pressure anyone to put their time, effort or money to do anything. I am explicitly encouraging those who have stepped out to express a vision and a plan with time and effort to pursue such. If there were someone equally passionate about cleaning Morphic and eToys and bringing them current with the current state of the art Morphic and eToys and had a plan to do something. I would gladly cheer them on too. I would truly love to see Squeak to have build-up-able images as opposed to the distribute all and remove philosophy. 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. Squeak is a diverse community. Lets build it up not bring it down. A small image with Morphic 3 may be the best future eToys 2+ can have. They are not mutually exclusive. It may be easier for a team to pick up the ball to implement a clean eToys on top of Morphic 3. I don't think Juan or Göran or anyone would be opposed. Any way I am well over my 2cents. And I just saw a plethora of messages flood my Squeak mailbox since I started this message. Trying to encourage. Jimmie |
Re: I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you? (was Re: Removing Etoys, Morphic and other friends)
|
|
In reply to this post by Stéphane Rollandin
On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:59:55 +0300, Stéphane Rollandin
<[hidden email]> wrote: > as I see it, my problem with *your* proposal is that we need to dump > eToys in order to gain a cleaned-up Morphic. > > to me "code cleanup" does not mean that any functionality is lost. only > that the code is cleaned up. maybe I am too simple-minded :) How to change the fundament of a building and in the same time to avoid removing of upper floors? > so your proposal is to kill etoys, which currently work just fine and is > used by many people, for the only reason that it does not seem to be > easy to clean it up. we had "if it's not broken, don't fix it", now it > seems we have "if it's not broken but ugly, then just kill it". To be honest I never had been an etoys user and probably should not jump in here. But anyway I wonder: if etoys are already working just fine right now (in efficiently forked image) why do they can not be detangled from the current squeak-dev image to allow it move forward? > this is utter nonsense. I just don't understand where we are going here. > why destroy Squeak ? Another point of view is that blocking any change going to squeak may finally repell the majority of creative people from it and kill in a different way (by not allowing to create a future). I'm not want to be harsh (still not used to English unfortunately) but for me it if squeak should die - then let it die: people may move to other projects which are lacking support now (including Strongtalk). > Stef best regards, Danil |
Re: I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you? (was Re: Removing Etoys, Morphic and other friends)
|
|
In reply to this post by Göran Krampe
Hey Goran,
the two of us recently have thrown some "nonsense" words at each other and I was *not* under the impression that you where getting tired just because we did so :) O.K. you should (also) be doing other things but that is no excuse! Everybody else here should (also) be doing other things. And if you're concerned that hardly any (major) change can be proposed without having tons of arguments raised against it, then you're perhaps suffering from the image based development of Squeak and other Smalltalks. Imagine how easy it would be if you'd just have to change a handful of "import" imperatives ;-) Come back into the discussion, please. Your opinion is valuable here in squeak-dev. /Klaus On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:43:37 +0100, <[hidden email]> wrote: > Hi folks! > > =?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=E9phane_Rollandin?= <[hidden email]> wrote: >> this is utter nonsense. I just don't understand where we are going here. >> why destroy Squeak ? > > Ok, I have for various reasons decided to drop out of this discussion. > > I don't think I will be able to make my arguments and views any more > clear than the "nonsense" I have produced so far, and since I seem to be > the only one publically supporting Juan (perhaps there were a few more) > I am clearly outnumbered. And I don't feel encouraged to keep discussing > it this particular way, no - I don't know why we should destroy Squeak > btw. > > And I should be doing other things anyway. ;) > > The rest of squeak-dev will simply have to (and the board IMHO) figure > this one out. > > regards, Göran > > PS. I am kinda tired of the fact that hardly any change can be proposed > in this community without having tons of arguments raised against it. > Sure, this particular case is harder to judge - but the fact remains, > how can we keep all the Juans out there interested if they only meet > resistance when offering their time and energy? Sure, the medicine does > not taste good - dumping eToys hurts, I know that. But this problem is > generic. And no, don't bother replying to me specifically about this > because I don't have the energy to discuss anything right now. > > |
Re: I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you? (was Re: Removing Etoys, Morphic and other friends)
|
|
In reply to this post by Göran Krampe
On 10/31/06, [hidden email] <[hidden email]> wrote: Hi! ... I can see your point but what I had in mind was cleaning up Morphic and being able to "revert to the old Morphic with eToys" ... this is btw also where Spoon comes in(more below) and makes me wonder if there isn't a middle ground that would automatically detect whether a project being loaded is using old Morphic and then load that project as an isolated project along with old Morphic? It also means that any cleanup that such a removal-script would do in In other words, the above sounds like either "status quo" or a fork of I dislike both. :) Note that eToys is not a clean "addon" on top of Morphic - it is in fact Agreed. However, eToys was originally presented as a Morphic add-on and that is the impression many(most?) new comers will continue to have. I think it would be much better to lift the burden of eToys, let Juan do I understand the difficulties, but since it's taking away something that currently works, the onus is on the remover in my view. In Oh if only it were that simple. Now if etoys had started out in a forked image that would be simple, but from the beginning etoys was in the only squeak image. IIRC the early browser plugin images were based on the current Squeak image. The Squeakland website has and continues in many places to make reference to Squeak without distinction and Google has recorded tons of this. No amount of assertion here will change that fact. We can decide that it doesn't matter, but it will be a long time before the close association between squeak.org and etoys is gone. Until then people who are attracted to Squeak because of etoys will continue to have bad impressions. This video makes it clear though it is somewhat painful for Squeakers regardless of what distribution they use to watch because it's not only about the etoy experience. Squeak and Smalltalk have done this over and over - we can't blame > >if we can unload eToys but not load it back, then let's just include eToys Thing is, eToys in the "main distro" I understand but most people coming to the Squeak site don't have your perspective. And this goes especially for 3.9 and beyond, since Squeakland is 3.8 That makes it less non-positive but it's still not an improvement IMO until the new morphic is used for something ... well new. > For me it's not that I'm opposed to a cleaner Morphic, I just don't want to The etoy/morphic entanglement will eventually yield to imprinting and with a dynamically configurable image, we'll get the best of both worlds. > It's not clear to me whether the upside of a cleaner Morphic wil= It is and I wouldn't mind at all seeing it but not at the price that's required for benefits that are not proven. If developers take the new etoyless, improved Morphic and start doing great things with it then a strong case can be made to break with the old. But that's not known yet, we could end up with a core Squeak that can't use etoys AND doesn't have much new to show because more people decide to go with Tweak or wxWidgets or ... Also - yes, the Squeaklanders did spend time to update eToys in 3.8 with I feel the same way. I also am looking at the history of Smalltalker's being our own worst enemy because we didn't consider how big an impact we could have if united in one interoperable ecosystem. Cheers, Laurence |
Re: I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you? (was Re: Removing Etoys, Morphic and other friends)
|
|
In reply to this post by danil osipchuk
danil osipchuk wrote:
>> to me "code cleanup" does not mean that any functionality is lost. >> only that the code is cleaned up. maybe I am too simple-minded :) > > How to change the fundament of a building and in the same time to avoid > removing of upper floors? > I don't know, I'm not into masonry, only computer science. > To be honest I never had been an etoys user and probably should not jump > in here. But anyway I wonder: if etoys are already working just fine > right now (in efficiently forked image) why do they can not be detangled > from the current squeak-dev image to allow it move forward? > I don't know, I did not implement eToys. I just use it, happily. >> this is utter nonsense. I just don't understand where we are going >> here. why destroy Squeak ? > > Another point of view is that blocking any change going to squeak may > finally repell the majority of creative people from it and kill in a > different way (by not allowing to create a future). I'm not want to be > harsh (still not used to English unfortunately) but for me it if squeak > should die - then let it die: people may move to other projects which > are lacking support now (including Strongtalk). > well I'm part of the creative people using Squeak. and if it gets dismantled, I will stop working with it. so your point works the other way round, too. regards, Stef |
Re: I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you? (was Re: Removing Etoys, Morphic and other friends)
|
|
In reply to this post by Jimmie Houchin-3
Jimmie Houchin wrote:
> [hidden email] wrote: > So it seems to me that the pro eToys side is a vote for the status quo, there is a name for this kind of status quo: it's called "backward compatibility". this is what I support. Stef |
«
Return to Squeak - Dev
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |