On Feb 2, 2012, at 11:21 PM, Helene Bilbo wrote: > > Marcus Denker-4 wrote >> >> So there are multiple problems: >> >> 1) Morphic is not and API or a codebase but and idea (or principle) >> And the question is even: a good one? In the current state for sure not. >> For sure it's instantiation depends *a lot* on the language >> model you have. >> > > I think exactly the Morphic ideas (or principles) (not the squeak morphic > code or the missing documentation or a morphic implementation in javascript) > were so very charming, elegant and intriguing. Directly manipulating, > combining Objects/Morphs and - as i read in this paper about LivelyKernel > [1] - serializing them. > > But as i understood the Pharo Vision Document, Pharo is more aimed at > business customers and therefor strives for being similar to other business > oriented smalltalks rather than becoming Squeak with cleaner and smaller > code and better documentation (which would have been also a very nice goal)?
Pharo wants to be a platform where people can innovate so if you want to innovate at the UI level (for example Gaucho) you need a good and flexible infrastructure. > > [1] > http://www.hpi.uni-potsdam.de/hirschfeld/publications/media/LinckeKrahnIngallsRoederHirschfeld_2011_TheLivelyPartsBinACloudBasedRepositoryForCollaborativeDevelopmentOfActiveWebContent_AuthorsVersion.pdf > > -- > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/keeping-up-with-lively-kernel-morphic-tp4349125p4353033.html > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >
