Re: [Pharo-project] keeping up with lively-kernel (morphic)
On Feb 2, 2012, at 6:56 PM, Lawson English wrote:
My understanding is that one of the design-specs of Lively Kernel Morph was to allow easy porting of the original Smalltalk-based Morphs to LK.
If they did that, they did a mistake. Do you really want to be compatible to Squeak Morphic? To that mess? Marcus -- Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
curious , do you basically say that Pharo community searches for a way to get rid and replace Morphic in Pharo ? ________________________________ From: Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr; lenglish5@cox.net Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2012, 20:00 Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] keeping up with lively-kernel (morphic) On Feb 2, 2012, at 6:56 PM, Lawson English wrote:
My understanding is that one of the design-specs of Lively Kernel Morph was to allow easy porting of the original Smalltalk-based Morphs to LK.
If they did that, they did a mistake. Do you really want to be compatible to Squeak Morphic? To that mess? Â Â Â Marcus -- Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
On Feb 2, 2012, at 7:16 PM, dimitris chloupis wrote:
curious , do you basically say that Pharo community searches for a way to get rid and replace Morphic in Pharo ?
improve it or replace it if someone propose something better :). Stef
From: Marcus Denker <marcus.denker@inria.fr> To: Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr; lenglish5@cox.net Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2012, 20:00 Subject: Re: [Pharo-project] keeping up with lively-kernel (morphic)
On Feb 2, 2012, at 6:56 PM, Lawson English wrote:
My understanding is that one of the design-specs of Lively Kernel Morph was to allow easy porting of the original Smalltalk-based Morphs to LK.
If they did that, they did a mistake. Do you really want to be compatible to Squeak Morphic? To that mess?
Marcus
-- Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
I apparently misread some of the papers. I can't find mention of how Morphic was ported, though the ability to use smalltalk inside an LK morph suggests that there is some expectation of reuse of code or perhaps they simply wanted Smalltalk programmers to feel more comfortable with LK morphs from the start. L. On 2/2/12 11:00 AM, Marcus Denker wrote:
On Feb 2, 2012, at 6:56 PM, Lawson English wrote:
My understanding is that one of the design-specs of Lively Kernel Morph was to allow easy porting of the original Smalltalk-based Morphs to LK. If they did that, they did a mistake. Do you really want to be compatible to Squeak Morphic? To that mess?
Marcus
-- Marcus Denker -- http://marcusdenker.de
participants (4)
-
dimitris chloupis -
Lawson English -
Marcus Denker -
Stéphane Ducasse