[Etoys] First use of OLPC feedback (bugs, suggestions, questions)

karl karl.ramberg at comhem.se
Wed Nov 14 14:52:52 EST 2007

stephane ducasse wrote:
>>   It wasn't like that at all, Stef.  One of the biggest reasons why we
>> ended up with a 3.8-based image was because the old Squeakland image
>> was based on 3.8.  In the other words, we didn't pick mainstream 3.8
>> image over 3.9.  We picked the Squeakland image as the basis.
>>   And why?  Because .pr files created in the Squeakland image are not
>> compatible with the 3.9 image.  The class shape change introduced by
>> Traits; you cannot load them into 3.9-based image.  That was a big
>> no-no.
> Ok I understand. I do not remember if this is really the shape  
> changes that
> break projects I will ask marcus.
>>   We, the whole Squeak community, weren't too careful about the
>> implication of Traits and existing contents when Traits was being
>> integrated to the mainstream image.  This was really unfortunate, but
>> we couldn't simply ignore the existing contents.
>>   And, to be honest, having a real control on the entire system was
>> important as development has to be done quickly.  Just sticking with
>> an image we understand was another motivation.  (At the risk of losing
>> the "improvements after 3.9, that is true.)
> Yes but now we lose mutual benefit.
>>   And, like Bert wrote (quoted below), the primary concern is always
>> to provide a better Etoys experience.
> I was also thinking about older kids  :)
> Thanks for answering because this is the kind of answer I can understand
> I still hope to find some times to harvest the changes made in olpc  
> for squeak 3.11 or after
*Pavel* Krivanek maintains packages where Morphic and Etoys are 
separated. I'm not sure of the status of those,I guess the etoy version 
is quite old. But it could be a starting point.


More information about the Etoys mailing list