[Cuis] [Ann] Cuis 4.1 is released

[juan at jvuletich.org]

> Extremely impressive Juan.  Congratulations.  Morphic3 is something
> that sounds worth breaking backward-compatibility in Squeak if it
> would ever possible to run there.

Thanks Chris. I still need to work on M3 for several months before it is
usable. I hope to be able to release some alpha code sooner. In any case,
what you say opens many interesting questions. Cuis was forked just for
technical reasons (not social or personal), and I think it still is a
'Squeak distribution'.

If there is enough interest in the Squeak community, the bigger issue is
how to deal with multiple distributions. Does Squeak need to support just
one distribution? Can it handle several? Or maybe there should not be an
'official squeak', but a set of pieces from where anybody could build her
own, personalized Squeak?

I don't have any answers. But I'm willing to think and discuss, to find
the best way, for people to have freedom to pick their own balance between
between compatibility, features,
evolutivity, etc. All this, enabling reuse and reducing duplication of
efforts...

Cheers,
Juan Vuletich

> On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:36 PM,  <juan at jvuletich.org> wrote:
>> Quoting Chris Muller <ma.chris.m at gmail.com>:
>>
>>>> The idea is that location (position, angle, scale, and/or whatever
>>>> specification of how a Morph is placed in its owner) should be
>>>> completely
>>>> separated from attributes such as extent. Any morph needs a location.
>>>> But
>>>> not all morphs need an extent. For example, a polyline, or Bezier path
>>>> would
>>>> be specified by corners or control points. Not by extent. In addition,
>>>> the
>>>
>>>
>>> That makes sense.  But isn't a rectangular extent still useful for
>>> quick identification of damaged areas, e.g., to support efficient
>>> redraw?
>>>
>>
>> That´s a problem for the Morphic machinery, not a problem for Morphs
>> and
>> their programmers. Somebody coding her morphs only needs to care about
>> appareance and behavior. Not about low level problems such as damaged
>> areas.
>>
>> The underlying machinery (World, Canvases, Hand, etc) need to know about
>> damaged areas and such. These are usually in Display coordinates, not in
>> Morph coordinates. (Remember that the objective is to build a ZUI). Even
>> there, a rectangle (aligned with Display or surface edges) is not the
>> only
>> alternative... Apple´s QuickDraw used regions for this in 1982!
>>
>> Squeak´s Morphic merges all this at a single level. The initial design
>> is
>> simpler, but to support rotation and scaling (via TransformMorphs and
>> WarpBlt), one consequence is terrible visual quality, because drawing is
>> done in fake coordinates, and it´s bitmaps that are scaled, not drawing
>> operations. In addition, these fake coordinates don´t really make much
>> sense, and the resulting object mashups are very hard to inspect and
>> debug.
>>
>> Fixing this mess is one of the central objectives of Cuis and Morphic 3.
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Juan Vuletich
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cuis mailing list
>> Cuis at jvuletich.org
>> http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cuis mailing list
> Cuis at jvuletich.org
> http://jvuletich.org/mailman/listinfo/cuis_jvuletich.org
>