This is an apt analogy - to take it a bit farther though - some of us 
really can't draw and need those rubber stamps.  When viewed along with 
other kits the collection of stamps is rather odd and several common 
forms are missing.

On Aug 2, 2004, at 5:55 AM, Gary Fisher wrote:

> Greetings, José!
>
> If I may paraphrase you a bit, Morphic is very powerful for doing 
> unordinary
> things.  The fact that "it doesn't 'impose' a set of standards" can 
> indeed
> lead to situations where "programs end up being very different one to 
> each
> other," but of course Morphic does not //require// that, it simply 
> permits
> it.  In some cases, and in some hands, that degree of freedom may be
> unnecessary, but it is never inherently undesirable.
>
> The difference is akin to that between a set of rubber stamps and a 
> box of
> crayons -- the stamping blocks make it easy to assemble words and 
> phrases,
> ensuring readability and uniformity and guiding the user's imagination
> within certain limits, while the crayons give free reign to the 
> imagination
> but leave the bulk of the responsibility for usefulness or 
> presentability to
> the user.
>
> If one is making signs the stamping blocks may be sufficient, but the
> crayons can be used for far more than just signs, and can lead to some
> rather striking signs as well.
>
> All the best,
>
> Gary
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Pupeno" <pupeno at pupeno.com>
> To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
> Sent: Sunday, August 01, 2004 2:36 AM
> Subject: Morphic, I still don't get it...
>
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> I'm trying to understand Morphic and why it is so wonderfull (and how 
> to
> build
> real applications with it)... but so far, I failed.
> I come from the Qt/KDE world, where I built interfaces with a GUI 
> builder,
> called Designer, where I placed buttons, text boxes and anything else 
> into a
> window (widget) and layed it out with a dynamic system. It seems 
> morphic has
> the same dynamic system. I also happened to have the concept of 
> actions, a
> program have actions and the items in the menus are some graphical
> representation of those actions, and the toolbars other 
> representations. But
> Morphic doesn't seem to have the concept of menubars nor toolbars... 
> am I
> wrong ?
> - From my point of view Morphic seems very powerfull to do very weird
> things,
> nice things but weird... am I wrong ? I mean, you can have nice things 
> done
> with text in curves and so on, but most applications don't use that.
> Another thing that I don't like about Morphic is that it doesn't 
> 'impose' a
> set of standards so the programs end up being very different one to 
> each
> other, colores, arrangements, buttons, etc, etc.
> My intention is not to be critic, but to understand, can you please, 
> help me
> understand ?
> Thanks.
> - --
> Pupeno: pupeno at pupeno.com - http://www.pupeno.com
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFBDI92fW48a9PWGkURAtyXAJ9zB1mTbxFrVdYoiNKKaOreW2N2bQCfSQq6
> ME3nDWQRS4IchPEvQYy+p9Y=
> =la/K
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
>
>
> ---
> avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
> Virus Database (VPS): 0431-3, 07/31/2004
> Tested on: 8/2/04 7:55:04 AM
> avast! is copyright (c) 2000-2004 ALWIL Software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>
>