Fernando olivero-2 wrote > > my overall impression , was that we need to stop being backward > compatible in order to create a simple Morphic-like framework for > Pharo, and start from scratch
Having worked with all three (Morphic, SimpleMorphic, and your from-scratch version), what are the tradeoffs with each? Is the complexity of SimpleMorphic, and more still Morphic, essential [1] or accidental [2]? What I'm really asking is: do you envision your version to offer similar features and power as either of the others? I (totally ignorantly) feel like we could squeeze most of the awesome power of Morphic into a *much* smaller package. Also, it'd be great to read the original Morphic papers (if you haven't already) for inspiration to let the intended liveness and directness shine through in this new project. This work that you're doing is incredibly important. In the hallways at every conference, I hear dreams of amazing tools people have in mind (myself included), which are put on hold due to the mind-boggling complexity and uncertainty of Morphic and its future. Let me know when there's anything I can do. Sean [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essential_complexity [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidental_complexity -- View this message in context: http://forum.world.st/Morphic-Cleanup-Status-tp4106566p4186864.html Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
