Hi, I agree that people should load what they want on top of a nice little core.
But, most people will load exactly the same thing: one set of development tools that should do the basic work nicely. This was the point of the Pharo distribution. And it shipped with OB and it was great. Only OB is rather limited, and apparently, it will not be supported anymore :). So, from this point of view, a browsing infrastructure is relevant for the Pharo distribution. Now, to me it seems that there is a problem with what different people understand by Pharo. And I think it would be good to clarify how we should get to the core image so that Lukas can get peace of mind :) Cheers, Doru p.s. And I told you that Glamour is small, not big :) On 31 Dec 2011, at 23:39, Lukas Renggli wrote: > On 31 December 2011 23:33, Stéphane Ducasse <[email protected]> wrote: >> I looked at it and >> I do not like the magic of the block and arguments >> and the scripting aspects >> Veronica showed me that she does not use long scripts. >> Still I do not see how we extend browsers. We discussed that during the PhD >> meal at bern with lukas >> and I'm still not convinced. >> >> Now if people want to load glamour perfect. Now I do not have any spare >> cycles >> to maintain it. My plate is full. For now I would like to have a good way to >> build and reuse Morphic widgets not to >> create another layer on top. > > +1000 > > Pharo should concentrate on the infrastructure, so that load what they > want: Glamour, OmniBrowser, ...; Seaside, Iliad, ...; or whatever the > next big thing is. > > Happy new year, > Lukas > > -- > Lukas Renggli > www.lukas-renggli.ch > -- www.tudorgirba.com Things happen when they happen, not when you talk about them happening.
