On Mar 20, 2010, at 12:39 AM, Mariano Martinez Peck wrote:
> Hi Lawson. Nebraska was removed intentionally from Pharo. Basically, because
> we want a clean, tested and working core.
>
> ANY package that we don't consider core, should be removed and loadable. I
> mean, if you want to use Nebraska, perfect, no problem. But you should load
> it by yourself from squeaksource or whatever. In the core (actually, we still
> trying) we put ONLY core code. In the PharoDev we put mostly Core + Dev tools
> or examples.
> We don't believe Nebraska should be neither in PharoDev in my opinion. Of
> course, if people think the opposite, we can include it.
>
> Regardless the above said, I am not sure Nebraska is working on Pharo. I
> invite you to try to load it, ask for help, and tell us the results. Then you
> can create a Metacello configuration for it and make it easy to manage and
> install.
So of course this idea of "just load it" is very difficult (impossible) to
realize if the software in question was just hacked and put code everywere in
the base system....
I think after Nebraska was removed, we cleaned up the rendering of handmorph,
for example. Nebraska complicates a far too complex Morphic system a bit.
In general, nebraska is one of the examples (others are eToys and Genie), that
where *very cool experiments*, but where the last important step was never done:
to learn from them and than build abstractions in the base system to make these
things implementable in a nice way.
I know that it's sad. And some people I am sure will think this is the wrong
way to go. But we felt that cutting out complexity especially regarding things
that are
not used is important if we want to move forward.
Marcus
--
Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de
INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD.
_______________________________________________
Pharo-project mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
