I had an idea. How about a visual scratch programming environment 
that was hooked up to the Method Finder. Take for example 
Ned's Connector morphs: you build up how the program should work with 
the UML widgets and type in the purpose of each part in the widget text field.
This text would look for methods with coresponding funkcionality in the image...

Karl

Alan Kay wrote:
> 
> The oldest advice I have given over the years (particularly after
> ST-80 went out in the world and was used so unimaginatively) is that
> you should always scratch program first using just a few tools. That
> exercise will often provide a much better sense of the most fruitful
> model. Once there, then it is worth while to look in the class
> library to see if someone has done a neater more efficient
> implementation of some of the subparts.
>       IMNSHO most Smalltalkers do far too much poking around in the
> class library too early ....
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Alan
> 
> -----
> 
> At 5:42 PM +0100 4/20/01, Peter Crowther wrote:
> >  > From: Stephan B. Wessels [mailto:stephan.wessels at sdrc.com]
> >>  Perhaps we all have a varying amount of creative ideas that
> >>  would benefit from
> >>  the proper instrument?  Even when it's a tool like Squeak.
> >
> >*Especially* when it's a tool --- or, more generally, toolbox --- like
> >Squeak.  Creative flow tends to stop abruptly when the tools to express that
> >flow aren't readily to hand or cannot be found, whether that's painting,
> >sculpture, music or programming.
> >
> >One of the great advantages of Smalltalk in general, and Squeak in
> >particular, is that the tools are likely to be in the toolbox *somewhere*.
> >One of the great *dis*advantages is rummaging around that huge toolbox
> >trying to find the tool you want, and knowing that someone's likely to have
> >built it in a form much more elegant than the one you just had to build but
> >didn't want to spend any time on.  Nobody's entirely solved that particular
> >problem, although the code-fragment-locating tools in Squeak come the
> >closest of any I know.
> >
> >               - Peter