Squeak-dev November 2006

squeak-dev@lists.squeakfoundation.org

157 participants
223 discussions

Re: here is a plan!
by Juan Vuletich 01 Nov '06

01 Nov '06

Hi Jecel, I apologize for breaking the thread, but I'm having problems with my mail provider and I can't answer to your mail. > Ok, so this is a rather different project than what I was hoping for. > Some of the problems you mention could be attacked by refactoring and > using Traits but this would imply a lot of changes just to have > essentially what we have now. I agree. > So I would like to ask about the plan proposed by Klaus (replacing > Morphic 2.0 with an eToyless Morphic 3.0) what is the level of > compatibility that we would have? Would I be able to grab some old > project from SqueakMap and have it work or would stuff like Celeste, IRC > and others have to be updated? The "plan proposed by Klaus" seems to be what I'm doing, and you can download from www.jvuletich.org . I will not guarantee back compatibility. Anyway, I'm not redoing PluggableMorphs. And if I do it sometime, I guess that could be back compatible. After all, the old applications (browser, etc) work the same with PluggableViews in MVC as with PluggableMorphs. That suggests that compatibility with that programming model could be kept. Of course, other morphs most likely will not work. Cheers, Juan Vuletich

1 0

Re: I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you?
by Juan Vuletich 01 Nov '06

01 Nov '06

Hi Folks, I apologize for not answering each message, but I can't get mail (problems @dc.uba.ar). So, if anybody sent me personal mail today, most likely I lost it. Please resend to this adress. First of all, Goran, thank you for your support. I don't think this needs much further discussion. But I'd like to know the board's opinion (or at least, the board member's one). To Ron, you asked 'A question for Juan, can your Morphic 3.0 advancements be applied to Tweak?'. I don't know. You also said 'I would like to see Juan and other Squeak developers work towards getting Tweak ready and include it in Squeak'. Do you think it is of any use each one of us to start saying what we would like the others to work on? Come on! Nobody gets paid here. Each one of us works on whatever we want! To *Jimmie, wrt '*and I would love to see some pre-built images which target certain user groups, eToys, business apps, web server, etc. I believe Spoon, Pavel & Juan, offer hope for such a future'. I agree with you. Thanks. To Bill, I agree that floats and general transformations are not the best solution for everything. Your point about PDAs is specially valid. Currently Morphic 3.0 is not a reasonable alternative to replace Morphic 2.0. But maybe some day. Wrt to 'killing the pixel'. The pixel is dying anyway. Postcript, pdf, display postcript, aqua, vista, see where the path goes? To Francisco, Interesting experiment! Cheers, Juan Vuletich

1 0

re: I am standing by Juan's proposal, do you? (was Re: Removing Etoys, Morphic and other friends)
by Bill Schwab 01 Nov '06

01 Nov '06

Göran, all, Göran's approval endorsement means a lot to me, no offense to anyone else. EToys strikes me as something better existing on top of rather than in morphic. Much of what Juan proposes make sense, and I really like the idea of having powerful transformations ready to compose and use. I strongly disagree with the idea of removing pixels; make them basic/prim/whatever, but removing the most basic element of graphics needlessly bold IMHO (see comment re PDA and other small machines below). Making morphs zoom/scale is GREAT. They must also be resizeable. Both of these shape changes are useful. Floats are great, but I think that much of the GUI can and should be rendered with integer arithmetic. Some scalings could be established in physical vs. logical dimensions, and once that filters into the remainder of the calculation, floats will appear everywhere; Smalltalk's usual dynamic nature should take over. With some work, it could probably be made to be efficient and flexible, with the cost of flexibility being voluntary. With that said, I will admit to creating a very complex user interface with most things specified in floating point inches. Still, I do not think we should force that on PDAs etc. that might not have the FLOPS of a 3GHz desktop machine. Integers have their uses. Bill Göran (much snipped): Since it feels that we are getting more concrete here I decided to rename the subject. Perhaps people join up in the discussion again. :) 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. :) Wilhelm K. Schwab, Ph.D. University of Florida Department of Anesthesiology PO Box 100254 Gainesville, FL 32610-0254 Email: bills(a)anest4.anest.ufl.edu Tel: (352) 846-1285 FAX: (352) 392-7029

1 0

Jump to page: