ok so you basically say different Morphics are different architectures, different method/functions names, diffirent class names and generally different workflows ?

If that is the case, yes in that case I can see the reason behind the lack of interest.

By default anyway LK Morphic and Pharo Morphic cant be compatible cause LK uses JS and Pharo uses ST.

I am not saying that you should work together though . Thats completely up to you. I will certainly will not ask for LK's permission or even your permission for my Morpheas library. I can appreciate that. Thats the beauty of open source , the freedom to follow your own path.

From: Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr>
To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr; dimitris chloupis <thekilon@yahoo.co.uk>
Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2012, 19:34
Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] keeping up with lively-kernel (morphic)

On Feb 2, 2012, at 6:31 PM, dimitris chloupis wrote:

> Well if there is a widget that can be easily ported and be useful to people I dont see any harm in taking an interest in other Morphic implementations.
>

No, you don't understand. Morphic is not a code base that is compatible. It's a pattern. Like MVC. Imagine someone requesting form Smalltlak
to work with, what, Ruby on Rails because they are the ones that "define the future of MVC".

Patterns are abstract ideas. Of course you can be inspired by ideas. But that is not "working together".

Marcus

--
Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de