Marcus I think that we improve Morphic a lot and we will continue. I do not think that this is wise to bash the only graphical system we have except if you want to use a web based solution. For me I still think that there is a good value in Morphic but that we should continue to improve it. And of course this is not an easy task.
Stef On Apr 6, 2013, at 7:10 PM, Marcus Denker <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Apr 6, 2013, at 7:00 PM, "Thomas Worthington" <[email protected]> > wrote: >> Look at Morphic. > > Morphic is a mess of epic proportion. The ideas are good (the basic ones), > but the implementation is beyond hope. > >> That's about all you can do with it if you've got a full time job that's not >> Smalltalk related - > > Morphic is unmaintanable and unusable for everyone. > >> >> The answer to Marcus' question "what should I not do to have time for that" >> is "anything". > > Anything is a bit of a hard thing.. e.g. Morphic does not need to be > documented, it needs to be thrown away and > reimplemented. It's just a pile of crap. > > >> I'm also not attempting to say that those who are very active with Pharo are >> bad programmers because documentation has become problematical - if they are >> then I'm a bad programmer too - I just want to point out that a system has >> even more need of documentation than a completed application and *if it's >> possible* (and I know that finance is an issue in the real world) then I >> think that updating the Pharo book(s) to a point where they describe the >> current Pharo 2.0 state is FAR more important than work on Pharo 3.0. > > > We need both. Documentation is important, but just documenting a system that > nobody needs makes no sense, either. > > Marcus > >
