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,
>
> 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
>

> I wonder, what is the opinion of the Squeakland people?
>
> The arguments for keeping etoys in Squeak seem even weaker to
> me if the actual stakeholders do not state "yes, this is
> important for us because we plan to keep our Squeakland fork
> in sync with future Squeak versions". If this is not the case
> it does not make sense to have a non maintained version in
> the main image (and that is what we have now). If there are
> people willing to remove etoys we should not miss the opportunity!
>
> Cheers,
> Adrian

>> I wonder, what is the opinion of the Squeakland people?

> 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.

>From: [hidden email]
>Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
>list<[hidden email]>
>To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
>list<[hidden email]>
>Subject: I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you? (was Re: Removing
>Etoys,Morphic and other friends)
>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:03:17 +0200
>
>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
>

>From: [hidden email]
>Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
>list<[hidden email]>
>To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
>list<[hidden email]>
>Subject: Re: I am standing by Juan's proposal,do you? (was Re: Removing
>Etoys, Morphic and other friends)
>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:43:37 +0200
>
>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 ?
>

>From: danil osipchuk <[hidden email]>
>Reply-To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
>list<[hidden email]>
>To: The general-purpose Squeak developers
>list<[hidden email]>
>Subject: Re: I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you? (was Re: Removing
>Etoys, Morphic and other friends)
>Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 20:38:34 +0000
>
>Stéphane Rollandin wrote:
>>
>>>>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.
>>>
>On the other side I'm extremely unhappy with current state of morphic.
>Today I have recommended the friend who is willing to study smalltalk to
>use Dolphin at the first time. This is because I believe that learning of
>Smalltalk should happen in the cleanly written system and Squeak doesn't
>qualify for this (because of morphic in a large extent). It is not system
>that one programmer can understand with reasonable effort anymore. Dolphin
>is.
>>sorry, I think I missed your point. you meant "if eToys work currently
>>well in Squeakland, why not get rid of them in Squeak-dev" ?. in that case
>>my answer is quite simple: I work in Squeak-dev, not Squeakland.
>>
>I see. So no point to argue who is right. The question is - what should we
>do in this clear conflict of interests? I would prefer an experimental
>marginal fork to exist for people who are ready for destabilization of
>things. Individual work like what Juan does is not quite the same because
>people tend to burn out and efforts should be joined. At least several
>people with a common view on this are needed.
>
>regards
>    Danil
>
>
>

> 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.