Some challenges for the morphic team

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Some challenges for the morphic team

stephane ducasse
Hi guys

- could you have a look at the pending fixes for 3.9b?
- then I was thinking that I would like to do the following:
Remove ToolPlus from the image
Start to convert systematically the Tools to use the ToolBuilder  
abstraction.

would you be interested in this effort?

Stef
_______________________________________________
Morphic mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/morphic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Some challenges for the morphic team

Juan Vuletich
Hello Stef.

First of all, let me apologize for the delay in answering. I wasn't sure
what to answer, and I had to think quit a bit about all this.

The Morphic Stewards Team hasn't had much activity recently.

I'm a bit disappointed that after some initial interest, nobody seems to be
interested in my objectives for Morphic anymore. I want to simplify, clean
and remove stuff. But nobody except for me sent any contribution in that
direction. (Except for Edgar. He did send some stuff, that I rejected). And
somehow recently, additional 'Diego's look' stuff got in. And I see people
believing that for Squeak to be 'serious' or something, we need native
widgets or migrate to wxWidgets or such. So my ideas don't seem popular
anymore.

I also believe that we are having serious problems in setting the direction
for Squeak. Even though we all agree we want a small basic image with
optional stuff in SqueakMap, every release gets bigger and bigger. The
community has people with very different interests and it's not easy to
satisfy all of them. And we are failing at setting teams for these different
areas, with the objective of REMOVING their stuff from the basic
distribution, to manage it outside the image. People seem to think that if
something is taken off the image it won't be maintained anymore. I think
this is not true. A package is maintained if and only if some guys with
enough knowledge and interest take care of it, be it in the image or in
SqueakMap.

WRT the development tools and ToolBuilder, I always thought that the
migration of the Morphic tools to ToolBuilder is a task for ToolBuilder
guys, and these tools shouldn't be anymore in a Morphic package or under the
responsibility of Morphic people. Wasn't this the idea?

Perhaps the Morphic Stewards Team needs new people, more in line with what
the community wants.

What I'm feeling inclined to do is to focus on my Morphic cleaning in my 3.7
image where it all began. Perhaps it could evolve into a Squeak Distribution
for programmers, or something like that. the only thing I will really miss
is Traits. But I'm sure I'll be able to load it when it is mature enough for
everyday use (I'm thinking basically of programmer's tools). Or perhaps my
version of Morphic is considered for loading in the official version
sometime. Or even better, we have a really small basic image with no Morphic
on it, and mine is one of the alternatives in SqueakMap.

Cheers,
Juan

----- Original Message -----
From: "stephane ducasse" <[hidden email]>
To: <[hidden email]>
Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 3:46 PM
Subject: [Morphic] Some challenges for the morphic team


> Hi guys
>
> - could you have a look at the pending fixes for 3.9b?
> - then I was thinking that I would like to do the following:
> Remove ToolPlus from the image
> Start to convert systematically the Tools to use the ToolBuilder
> abstraction.
>
> would you be interested in this effort?
>
> Stef
> _______________________________________________
> Morphic mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/morphic
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.5/333 - Release Date: 5/5/2006
>
>

_______________________________________________
Morphic mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/morphic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Some challenges for the morphic team

stephane ducasse
> I'm a bit disappointed that after some initial interest, nobody  
> seems to be interested in my objectives for Morphic anymore. I want  
> to simplify, clean and remove stuff. But nobody except for me sent  
> any contribution in that direction. (Except for Edgar. He did send  
> some stuff, that I rejected). And somehow recently, additional  
> 'Diego's look' stuff got in. And I see people believing that for  
> Squeak to be 'serious' or something, we need native widgets or  
> migrate to wxWidgets or such. So my ideas don't seem popular anymore.


I think that if you have a vision keeps it and continue. If you  
improve something we will incorporate it.
I would love to help. Now my time is so short that I cannot even  
program.

> I also believe that we are having serious problems in setting the  
> direction for Squeak.
> Even though we all agree we want a small basic image with optional  
> stuff in SqueakMap, every release gets bigger and bigger.

But where are the cool shrinkers? Where is the code that I can  
unload. Did you have a look at the scriptloader?
There is a category of methods for checking which package can unload  
(just unload not even cleanly). So do you
think that if you provide some repakaging we will ignore it? No so what?

> The community has people with very different interests and it's not  
> easy to satisfy all of them. And we are failing at setting teams  
> for these different areas, with the objective of REMOVING their  
> stuff from the basic distribution, to manage it outside the image.  
> People seem to think that if something is taken off the image it  
> won't be maintained anymore.

I do not know. What I see is that lot of packages are not maintained.  
Network fixes seem to be lost. May be network is not interesting  
after all.

> I think this is not true. A package is maintained if and only if  
> some guys with enough knowledge and interest take care of it, be it  
> in the image or in SqueakMap.

Exact.

> WRT the development tools and ToolBuilder, I always thought that  
> the migration of the Morphic tools to ToolBuilder is a task for  
> ToolBuilder guys, and these tools shouldn't be anymore in a Morphic  
> package or under the responsibility of Morphic people. Wasn't this  
> the idea?


I do not know. I spent some nights with Cees to make sure that at  
least we could load the ToolsPlus in the hope that
we could subsitute the old tools but this was not the case. So we  
will remove them from the image. Still we lost a lot of time.
But we tried!

> Perhaps the Morphic Stewards Team needs new people, more in line  
> with what the community wants.

You are the community so what do you expect. Three guys having fun is  
enough.


> What I'm feeling inclined to do is to focus on my Morphic cleaning  
> in my 3.7 image where it all began.

I think that doing that will be an error. But this is your time and  
energy.
I think that I will harvest then the fixes and changes that have been  
sent to morphic.

> Perhaps it could evolve into a Squeak Distribution for programmers,  
> or something like that. the only thing I will really miss is Traits.
Are you joking?
Have you see the number of fixes and enh we harvested. This is not  
only traits that you will not get.

This is exactly with this kind of behavior that nothing in the long  
run will happen. That we see a lot of people creating their own  
images but not really making sure that others can use it. I said  
several times to Pavel and others that if what they do is reasonable  
for 3.9 (small steps) then we would integrate that. With this  
reasoning Diego, Traits, Unicode....would still be in
several different images. We spent a ****lot**** of times to make  
sure that what people did is integrated. People
were willing to spend time improving Squeak.

> But I'm sure I'll be able to load it when it is mature enough for  
> everyday use (I'm thinking basically of programmer's tools). Or  
> perhaps my version of Morphic is considered for loading in the  
> official version sometime. Or even better, we have a really small  
> basic image with no Morphic on it, and mine is one of the  
> alternatives in SqueakMap.

Why don't you work on 3.9 I really do not get it.
Do not make the mistake of the ToolsPlus, all that good energy was lost.
I would like to get some energy to migrate all the tools to use  
ToolsBuilder but right now I spend my days fighting, my evening  
painting and the rest writing articles and teaching.

Ok so if the morphic team is dead, I suggest that we close it and  
mark it dormant
because there is nothing more counter productive than to give the  
impression that there is activity while
nothing happen.

Stef


>
> Cheers,
> Juan
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "stephane ducasse"  
> <[hidden email]>
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Sent: Saturday, May 06, 2006 3:46 PM
> Subject: [Morphic] Some challenges for the morphic team
>
>
>> Hi guys
>>
>> - could you have a look at the pending fixes for 3.9b?
>> - then I was thinking that I would like to do the following:
>> Remove ToolPlus from the image
>> Start to convert systematically the Tools to use the ToolBuilder  
>> abstraction.
>>
>> would you be interested in this effort?
>>
>> Stef
>> _______________________________________________
>> Morphic mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/morphic
>>
>>
>> --
>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>> Version: 7.1.392 / Virus Database: 268.5.5/333 - Release Date:  
>> 5/5/2006
>>
>
>

_______________________________________________
Morphic mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/morphic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Some challenges for the morphic team

Edgar J. De Cleene
In reply to this post by Juan Vuletich
3.9b 7032 is out and work, so I apollogize my odd ways.

In my defense, I said what I feeling the time pass to quick to me and think
I don't have enough days to do something .



I send some bug report for 7032, one of them never should be
[BUG] 3.9b 7032 PasteMorph collapseAllWindows
In Mantis 0001091 from 04-21-05 16:17

And a one line fix on
[BUG] The attached walckback raise when you drag and drop a .cs file on 7032
image from few days ago.

The hex depretiation was taked for Boris, so sure a fix comes from he.

Also , I notice Nebraska in 7032 have the same bug as I send to all, and
what Yoshiki said my solution could be a good one but never send the final
aprobation

At this time , I working with young people, one of them do a Morphic loader
of mixed .cs, .mcz, etc (I send notice to list and no answers).

Also , planning and experimenting on new versions of SqueakLight what could
"learn" form regular 3.9b 7032 via Mom-Child setup or from a remote
repository of classes.

Also , improving compatibility with 3.9.

I wish Juan could have time for I go to Buenos Aires (I was in knock out
situation , but think personal meeting is a good thing)

I have MC2 loaded on small images and still learning with it.

I have time for work, but need faster response and what I said do not was
trashed as quick.


Again excuse me if I cause troubles.

Edgar



               
____________________________________________________
Esa persona especial te espera en Yahoo! Encuentros.
¬°Dejate encontrar!
http://ar.encuentros.yahoo.com/ 

_______________________________________________
Morphic mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/morphic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Some challenges for the morphic team

Juan Vuletich
In reply to this post by stephane ducasse
Hi Stef


>> I'm a bit disappointed that after some initial interest, nobody  seems to
>> be interested in my objectives for Morphic anymore. I want  to simplify,
>> clean and remove stuff. But nobody except for me sent  any contribution
>> in that direction. (Except for Edgar. He did send  some stuff, that I
>> rejected). And somehow recently, additional  'Diego's look' stuff got in.
>> And I see people believing that for  Squeak to be 'serious' or something,
>> we need native widgets or  migrate to wxWidgets or such. So my ideas
>> don't seem popular anymore.
>
> I think that if you have a vision keeps it and continue.

That's what I'm after. My shrinked 3.7 image includes my first experiments
on a serious redesign of Morphic itself. (more on this at the end).

> If you  improve something we will incorporate it.
> I would love to help. Now my time is so short that I cannot even  program.

You have always been of great help to every squeaker. It is me who
doesn't have enough time and energy for working more on Squeak.

>> I also believe that we are having serious problems in setting the
>> direction for Squeak.
>> Even though we all agree we want a small basic image with optional  stuff
>> in SqueakMap, every release gets bigger and bigger.
>
> But where are the cool shrinkers? Where is the code that I can  unload.
> Did you have a look at the scriptloader?
> There is a category of methods for checking which package can unload
> (just unload not even cleanly). So do you
> think that if you provide some repakaging we will ignore it? No so what?

The fact is that it is muuuuch easier to simply remove the stuff I don't
want
from my image, than making it possible to unload (and reload) packages.
It only makes sense to work on the latter if enough people really uses it
to justify the effort. I believe this is not the case. Besides, I don't have
the
time and energy to finish the work I started in Morphic / MorphicExtras /
Etoys.

>> The community has people with very different interests and it's not  easy
>> to satisfy all of them. And we are failing at setting teams  for these
>> different areas, with the objective of REMOVING their  stuff from the
>> basic distribution, to manage it outside the image.  People seem to think
>> that if something is taken off the image it  won't be maintained anymore.
>
> I do not know. What I see is that lot of packages are not maintained.
> Network fixes seem to be lost. May be network is not interesting  after
> all.

So, if that was the case (of course I don't think so), what we would be
lacking is a means to decide that something is not interesting anymore, and
remove it from the image.

>> I think this is not true. A package is maintained if and only if  some
>> guys with enough knowledge and interest take care of it, be it  in the
>> image or in SqueakMap.
>
> Exact.
>
>> WRT the development tools and ToolBuilder, I always thought that  the
>> migration of the Morphic tools to ToolBuilder is a task for  ToolBuilder
>> guys, and these tools shouldn't be anymore in a Morphic  package or under
>> the responsibility of Morphic people. Wasn't this  the idea?
>
> I do not know. I spent some nights with Cees to make sure that at  least
> we could load the ToolsPlus in the hope that
> we could subsitute the old tools but this was not the case. So we  will
> remove them from the image. Still we lost a lot of time.
> But we tried!

I appreciate your effort.

>> Perhaps the Morphic Stewards Team needs new people, more in line  with
>> what the community wants.
>
> You are the community so what do you expect. Three guys having fun is
> enough.

I agree. I want to use my little Squeak time to have fun.

>> What I'm feeling inclined to do is to focus on my Morphic cleaning  in my
>> 3.7 image where it all began.
>
> I think that doing that will be an error. But this is your time and
> energy.

I didn't put it correctly. The main objective is not cleaning but
redesigning. (please see at the end). The result should be a new
Morphic package that could be loaded by those who don't care
about compatibility with existing applications (Etoys, etc), but that
most likely, the community would reject as an official replacement
for not being back compatible.

> I think that I will harvest then the fixes and changes that have been
> sent to morphic.

I would really appreciate that.

>> Perhaps it could evolve into a Squeak Distribution for programmers,  or
>> something like that. the only thing I will really miss is Traits.

> Are you joking?
> Have you see the number of fixes and enh we harvested. This is not  only
> traits that you will not get.

Not at all. I would also miss some small fixes, but not the bigger
improvements. It is a matter of personal interests and taste.
At my job, I work in VisualSmalltalk. Compared to current Squeak, it
is very small. The only thing I really miss there is Morphic and the
Method Finder. I really believe in Dan's Personal Mastery principle.
I can do more and better in VS than in Squeak because it is smaller.
The Squeak kernel has been pretty stable for several years. That's why
I don't care too much about most of the new stuff.

> This is exactly with this kind of behavior that nothing in the long  run
> will happen. That we see a lot of people creating their own  images but
> not really making sure that others can use it. I said  several times to
> Pavel and others that if what they do is reasonable  for 3.9 (small steps)
> then we would integrate that. With this  reasoning Diego, Traits,
> Unicode....would still be in
> several different images. We spent a ****lot**** of times to make  sure
> that what people did is integrated. People
> were willing to spend time improving Squeak.

I understand and agree with you, except for the first phrase. Somebody
working in his own image on the stuff he needs, is in no way "nothing
happening". If his work can be used by others, much better. But if not,
it doesn't mean it was useless. For instance, remember PhotoSqueak.
I wrote that stuff for a class lab project. I also published it in the hope
that somebody could use it. It was never considered for inclusion in the
image, but if anybody wants to do Image Processing in Squeak, he
knows he can reuse my work. That's good enough for me.

>> But I'm sure I'll be able to load it when it is mature enough for
>> everyday use (I'm thinking basically of programmer's tools). Or  perhaps
>> my version of Morphic is considered for loading in the  official version
>> sometime. Or even better, we have a really small  basic image with no
>> Morphic on it, and mine is one of the  alternatives in SqueakMap.
>
> Why don't you work on 3.9 I really do not get it.
> Do not make the mistake of the ToolsPlus, all that good energy was lost.

Because I have a lot of work already done in my 3.7 image! You know
how hard it is to move your stuff to each new Squeak version.
The difference with ToolPlus is that I'm not doing an improvement to
Squeak. What I'm doing is not meant to be compatible with other
packages in the image. I don't want to spend the little time I have on
compatibility issues. I want to express my ideas in a design, to test them.
If they are good, they will be used by others.

> I would like to get some energy to migrate all the tools to use
> ToolsBuilder but right now I spend my days fighting, my evening  painting
> and the rest writing articles and teaching.

I understand your frustration. Everybody is short of time, so we all
must use it with care.

> Ok so if the morphic team is dead, I suggest that we close it and  mark it
> dormant because there is nothing more counter productive
> than to give the  impression that there is activity while nothing happen.
>
> Stef

I'm afraid you are right. Please advice on what to do.
Folks, if anybody feels like replacing me, this is the time to speak!

What follows are some ideas for a redesign of Morphic. Some of them were
suggested by John Maloney (the main implementor of Morphic). Others are old
ideas of mine. I did my first experiments on them in C, way before knowing
about Smalltalk.

- Every Morph defines a space and a coordinate system. His #drawOn: method
and the location of his submorphs are expressed in his own coordinate
system.

- The coordinate systems are 2D but are not restricted to Cartesian. Others
are polar, logarithmic Cartesian, and hyperbolic and map-like projections.
The basic one is Cartesian with Float coordinates.

- There is no concept of pixel. Going from pixels to general coordinate
systems is like going from bits to objects. All the gui is independent of
pixel resolution. All the rendering is antialiased.

- A coordinate system + its position in an owner + its extent in an owner +
its rotation angle in an owner together specify a translation of coordinates
to the owner's space and coordinate system.

- The Morph hierarchy is NOT a shape hierarchy. Morphs don't have a concept
of a border or color. There is no general concept of submorph aligning.

- The existing Morph hierarchy is renamed as OldXxxx. Anyway, most of them
are deleted. Only kernel, a few basic, and the programming tools remain.

- Old Morphs and new Morphs can live together in a World.

Any comment on all this is welcome.

Cheers,
Juam

_______________________________________________
Morphic mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/morphic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Some challenges for the morphic team

Juan Vuletich
In reply to this post by Edgar J. De Cleene
Hi Edgar,


> 3.9b 7032 is out and work, so I apollogize my odd ways.

It's not always easy to read your messages, but this is a free speech
community!

> In my defense, I said what I feeling the time pass to quick to me and
> think
> I don't have enough days to do something .


Sometimes I have the same feeling.

>...
>
> Also , I notice Nebraska in 7032 have the same bug as I send to all, and
> what Yoshiki said my solution could be a good one but never send the final
> aprobation


I though I aproved and published those changes, but I'm not sure. I guess
this is all my fault.

> ... interesting work...
>
> I wish Juan could have time for I go to Buenos Aires (I was in knock out
> situation , but think personal meeting is a good thing)


I agree. It would be great to meet. If you come to Buenos Aires, I'm sure we
can get together to drink some beers.

> I have time for work, but need faster response and what I said do not was
> trashed as quick.


Many times you needed a quicker response from me, and I apologize for that.
Sometimes I felt the same when expecting some aswer.

> Again excuse me if I cause troubles.
>
> Edgar


Making Squeak evolve is slow and difficult. Many times an improvement in one
area is a step back in another. We all feel frustrated from time to time.
You are not afraid of speaking, and that's good.

Cheers,
Juan

_______________________________________________
Morphic mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/morphic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Some challenges for the morphic team

stephane ducasse
In reply to this post by Juan Vuletich
>> If you  improve something we will incorporate it.
>> I would love to help. Now my time is so short that I cannot even  
>> program.
>
> You have always been of great help to every squeaker. It is me who
> doesn't have enough time and energy for working more on Squeak.

but if you do not have that much time, why not contributing in small  
increment
base to 3.9 :)

>>> I also believe that we are having serious problems in setting the  
>>> direction for Squeak.
>>> Even though we all agree we want a small basic image with  
>>> optional  stuff in SqueakMap, every release gets bigger and bigger.
>>
>> But where are the cool shrinkers? Where is the code that I can  
>> unload. Did you have a look at the scriptloader?
>> There is a category of methods for checking which package can  
>> unload (just unload not even cleanly). So do you
>> think that if you provide some repakaging we will ignore it? No so  
>> what?
>
> The fact is that it is muuuuch easier to simply remove the stuff I  
> don't want
> from my image, than making it possible to unload (and reload)  
> packages.

:)

> It only makes sense to work on the latter if enough people really  
> uses it
> to justify the effort. I believe this is not the case. Besides, I  
> don't have the
> time and energy to finish the work I started in Morphic /  
> MorphicExtras /
> Etoys.

OK

> So, if that was the case (of course I don't think so), what we  
> would be
> lacking is a means to decide that something is not interesting  
> anymore, and
> remove it from the image.

???

> I didn't put it correctly. The main objective is not cleaning but
> redesigning. (please see at the end). The result should be a new
> Morphic package that could be loaded by those who don't care
> about compatibility with existing applications (Etoys, etc), but that
> most likely, the community would reject as an official replacement
> for not being back compatible.

OK

> Not at all. I would also miss some small fixes, but not the bigger
> improvements. It is a matter of personal interests and taste.
> At my job, I work in VisualSmalltalk. Compared to current Squeak, it
> is very small. The only thing I really miss there is Morphic and the
> Method Finder. I really believe in Dan's Personal Mastery principle.

Sure me too.
But cut from 3.9

>
> I understand and agree with you, except for the first phrase. Somebody
> working in his own image on the stuff he needs, is in no way "nothing
> happening". If his work can be used by others, much better. But if  
> not,
> it doesn't mean it was useless. For instance, remember PhotoSqueak.
> I wrote that stuff for a class lab project. I also published it in  
> the hope
> that somebody could use it. It was never considered for inclusion  
> in the
> image, but if anybody wants to do Image Processing in Squeak, he
> knows he can reuse my work. That's good enough for me.

Sure this is not want I meant.
But if you fix bugs in 3.7 because you will face it. Then may be we  
will not
be able to use them.
>

> Because I have a lot of work already done in my 3.7 image! You know
> how hard it is to move your stuff to each new Squeak version.
>
I know

> The difference with ToolPlus is that I'm not doing an improvement to
> Squeak. What I'm doing is not meant to be compatible with other
> packages in the image. I don't want to spend the little time I have on
> compatibility issues. I want to express my ideas in a design, to  
> test them.
> If they are good, they will be used by others.

Ok

> What follows are some ideas for a redesign of Morphic. Some of them  
> were suggested by John Maloney (the main implementor of Morphic).  
> Others are old ideas of mine. I did my first experiments on them in  
> C, way before knowing about Smalltalk.

:)

>
> - Every Morph defines a space and a coordinate system. His #drawOn:  
> method and the location of his submorphs are expressed in his own  
> coordinate system.
>
> - The coordinate systems are 2D but are not restricted to  
> Cartesian. Others are polar, logarithmic Cartesian, and hyperbolic  
> and map-like projections. The basic one is Cartesian with Float  
> coordinates.
>
> - There is no concept of pixel. Going from pixels to general  
> coordinate systems is like going from bits to objects. All the gui  
> is independent of pixel resolution. All the rendering is antialiased.
>
> - A coordinate system + its position in an owner + its extent in an  
> owner + its rotation angle in an owner together specify a  
> translation of coordinates to the owner's space and coordinate system.
>
> - The Morph hierarchy is NOT a shape hierarchy. Morphs don't have a  
> concept of a border or color. There is no general concept of  
> submorph aligning.
>
> - The existing Morph hierarchy is renamed as OldXxxx. Anyway, most  
> of them are deleted. Only kernel, a few basic, and the programming  
> tools remain.
>
> - Old Morphs and new Morphs can live together in a World.
>
> Any comment on all this is welcome.



Would be good :) but lot of work?
>
> Cheers,
> Juam
>

_______________________________________________
Morphic mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/morphic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Some challenges for the morphic team

Juan Vuletich
Hi Stef,

----- Original Message -----

> but if you do not have that much time, why not contributing in small
> increment
> base to 3.9 :)
>
>> So, if that was the case (of course I don't think so), what we  would be
>> lacking is a means to decide that something is not interesting  anymore,
>> and
>> remove it from the image.
>
> ???

I think these are exactly the issues Cees is talking about in his "Whither
Squeak?"
thread in Squeak-dev: How to maintain a too big system, and how to decide
that something should be removed and forgotten. I totally agree with him.

>> Not at all. I would also miss some small fixes, but not the bigger
>> improvements. It is a matter of personal interests and taste.
>> At my job, I work in VisualSmalltalk. Compared to current Squeak, it
>> is very small. The only thing I really miss there is Morphic and the
>> Method Finder. I really believe in Dan's Personal Mastery principle.
>
> Sure me too.
> But cut from 3.9

I already have some of my new Morphic working. I just want to advance in the
image where I have it. Then It would be loadable in 3.9, or much better the
new 4.0 if we can make it really smaller.

>...
> Sure this is not want I meant.
> But if you fix bugs in 3.7 because you will face it. Then may be we  will
> not
> be able to use them.

If I find bugs in Morphic, those fixes won't be applicable to the old
Morphic. If I fix bugs elsewhere, I will publish them.

> Would be good :) but lot of work?

Yes, but the kind of work I really enjoy. I've spent a lot of hours thinking
about this. I met Tim and Craig on 2003 and told them about these ideas. I
will spend time on this for the next couple of years for sure. But this is
what I think Squeak needs to be good for application development (and not
native widgets, cool look out of the box, or any of that). Therefore
(instead of complaining on sqDev), I will implement what I need. And I'm
writting a commercial application in Squeak. Currently, I only have some
ideas, but something I really need is support for a good UI.

Cheers,
Juan

_______________________________________________
Morphic mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/morphic
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Some challenges for the morphic team

Chris Muller
In reply to this post by stephane ducasse
Ok, I poked where I shouldn't be poking.  Sorry about that.


> >> Start to convert systematically the Tools to use the ToolBuilder
> >> abstraction.
> >
> > Are these the tools that Monticello browsers are written in?  The
> > Monticello browsers seem to be fairly buggy (losing event handlers
> on
> > buttons after switching projects), with some display issues (turtle
> > droppings) and serious usability issues (i.e., resizing panes).
>
>
> I do not think that this has something to do with ToolBuilder.
> But you can ask to Colin.
>
>
> > I would expect these problems NOT be transferred to the legacy
> > browsers.
> >
> > BTW, why not the OmniBrowser abstraction?
>
> But this is not at the same level. ToolBuilder is just a was to avoid
> direct reference to
> a framework. Instead of hardcoding PopUpMenu everwhere, we rely on
> UIManager.
>
> Stef
> >
> > Regards,
> >   Chris



_______________________________________________
Morphic mailing list
[hidden email]
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/morphic