On Oct 20, 2008, at 11:44 PM, Antony Blakey wrote:
On 21/10/2008, at 2:52 AM, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
First let's remove all the etoys/BookMorph
Second clean Morphic
Third clean a lot of the rest
Fourth then we should be in position to have a smaller kernel
and may be someone will start to clean and refactor the fonts.
But these don't really define the purpose of Pharo e.g. Who is the
intended audience?
In this thread it's already been determined that Pharo 'Must not
require FreeType', and someone said 'Must run on bare metal' and
'Must not require external libraries'.
Those are the kind of constraints that would immediately define what
can be added and what removed.
Another important class of constraints would be what packages must
not be broken e.g. must Whisker still work?, and thus what packages
can/should be removed.
who said that?
We will not be backwards compatible with software that is not used and
not maintain.
And there must be some context behind wanting to remove eToys/
BookMorph. Is it obsolete/unused? Is it used only by a class of user
that you explicitly don't wish to target?
have a look at the code and you will get the answer.
No giant spagetthi code in pharo.
I do not want to argue endlessly on that. Squeak is the forum for that
kind of discussions.
Antony Blakey
--------------------------
CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
Ph: 0438 840 787
Success is not the key to happiness. Happiness is the key to success.
-- Albert Schweitzer
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
