Chris be sure that if somebody clean the core of morphic we are interested.
>> 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. > > Hi Marcus, actually I'm pretty sure most everyone on the Squeak side > agrees with you here. The real difference is that Squeak wants to > take the approach that we *do* that last step; make the abstractions, > do the work, extricate it from Morphic, clean it up, make it loadable. > > For Pharo's direction and needs, Nebraska has, understandably, not > been not a priority. But why don't we move forward from always > highlighting philosophical (or other) differences anyway? The > interesting question is, can a single refactored-Nebraska work on both > Pharo and Squeak? Now it can be a read pain without the right infrastructure. Stef _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project
