ducasse <ducasse at iam.unibe.ch> wrote:
> > Eh, what? The arrow IS the underscore! I don't understand what you are
> > saying. :-)
> >
> > Just as long as I can use the arrow when I program I am happy. :-)
> 
> The arrow glyph is not on the keyboard. When I edit a piece of text 
> with my email editor there is no
> arrow just underscore. Then even in Squeak when I have a code and I 
> change the font or the size I get a _

Looks like an arrow to me :-) (I use Celeste)

> >> May be one of these days we should realize and leave enfancy....
> >
> > I don't agree. ":=" is two keys.
> 
> Sure but you can understan that other people hate this arrow.

Well, I can understand if people want to use ":=" instead. But I still
personally think the arrow is good - it is just one character to type
and it is visually appealing for assignment IMHO.

> >  I want one. And it looks prettier too
> > (the arrow).
> 
> This is a question of taste.
> Prettier sure in comic 16

Not sure what you mean.

> > But pretty printing is of course more practical to use ":=" I assume.
> 
> My point is that this kind of wonderful legacy gives an wonderful 
> childish taste to Squeak
> but we are just having fun and making nothing real so this is perfect. 
> Let us play.

I assume you are being sarcastic here. First of all, I can not see what
is so childish about an arrow instead of ":=". Are keyword messages
"childish" too? I mean, it is obviously "foreign" to the curly brace
crowd...

And even if it was childish (personally I think the default window
colors induce more feelings of "childishness" than the arrow) I am not
sure that I consider that to be a negative. I *like* the aura of
childishness in Squeak - the feeling of playfulness and friendliness.
Squeak doesn't try to look as something hard, complex and intimidating -
it invites you to play with it. And IMHO this is as it should be.

And if newbies/people don't have the interest and patience to learn more
about Squeak to realize that indeed this perceived "childishness" is NOT
due to Squeak being "merely" a toy (in a positive sense it of course
*is* a toy) - then so be it. :-)

I would also like to know what you meant with "we are just having fun
and making nothing real"? Is that a reference to my first proposal of a
Vision? Just curious.

regards, Göran