Surprise!  Another newbie arrives to inform us that Squeak is deficient 
because it doesn't look like Windows.  The archives are replete with 
these arguments, which have been discussed substantively again and 
again.  Bottom line: don't like it, fix it.  Many have implemented 
various forms of "work-alike"-ism in the past -- including direct GUI 
access, and interestingly enough, nobody really used them -- there 
simply wasn't the need and demand for it that the newbies anticipated.  
The projects ultimately laid fallow after completion and dropped into 
the bit bucket.

I don't agree that this is even a desirable goal.  It is important to 
note that Squeak is the *only* system i know of that adequately meets 
the promises of "write once, run anywhere" proffered by Java in the 
early days.  Squeak applications run pixel-for-pixel identically across 
many platforms.  This is a big advantage in many of the applications I 
have built.  I'd be devastated to lose that for the "virtue" of aping 
the Windows API.

For the record, I don't find Squeak all that idiosyncratic.  And Squeak 
hasn't had trouble finding excellent contributors either.  In short, I 
see no compelling need to make the changes suggested.  But here's the 
neat thing -- for those that do, Squeak lets you build it.  Instead of 
arguing about it, just do it.  Otherwise, review the archives and learn 
why nobody really is interested in doing what Karl and a zillion others 
before him suggest.

On Saturday, June 8, 2002, at 10:41 PM, Karl Goiser wrote:

> Hi Gary,
>
> I don't have any argument with you about the relative quality of 
> various GUI's.  My problem with Squeak is that its is _different_ and 
> there are some very well established user interface principles about 
> similarity, predictability and learning that means that switching 
> between <insert your os here> and Squeak just won't do.
>
> (I was recently in the USA for Apple's WWDC.  I am an Aussie, so I had 
> to think about some of the most mundane things in order to get on with 
> what I wanted to do because so many things were the opposite to what I 
> was used to: light switches were 'upside down', sink taps turned the 
> 'wrong way' - and I had to be so careful when crossing streets because 
> cars drove on the 'wrong side of road'.)
>
> I don't have an argument with the Squeak user interface - I think it is 
> really good to have something like this where research can be done - I 
> just wish there were something just like Squeak that used <insert your 
> os here> as well.
>
> Look at it from a newcomer's point of view: Squeak has a wonderful 
> language, a great library (viewable in source too) and an unsurpassed 
> development environment, but how are they going to find out about those 
> things if they can't get past the idiosyncratically unique user 
> interface?
>
> In my opinion, you get more users to Squeak by showing them a better 
> way to achieve their goals, not another planet to live on.  (Ok, some 
> users will want to live on another planet, and that is fine too).
>
> Karl
>
>> To say that Squeak cannot succeed unless it becomes practically
>> indistinguishable from that which it should replace is reminiscent of 
>> the
>> argument that automobiles could not succeed unless they looked like
>> carriages.
>>
>> Squeak is not just another medium in which to build Windows or Mac
>> applications; that's far too limited a viewpoint.  That's why your 
>> second
>> statement, "On the other hand, when you think about it, isn't Squeak 
>> itself
>> the 'killer app'?" is so much closer to the mark (and, coincidentally,
>> exactly what I was going to say. :-)  The trick, then, is to get the 
>> word
>> out.  IMHO, at this point Squeak needs evangelists more than 
>> developers.
>
> -- ----
> Klaatu barada nikto    (http://www.wattle.net/klaatu.wav)
>