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 <marcus.denker@inria.fr> wrote:
On Apr 6, 2013, at 7:00 PM, "Thomas Worthington" <thomas@technouveau.co.uk> 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