Bill, you're absolutely right that the track record is important, and
actually that's the kind of motivation I had for putting the bar at
"creating a Play With Me".  Making one would require a certain amount of
motivation, enough that it would seem like a reasonable basis for giving
someone the spotlight.

Anyway, I dream of the day when we have to choose among piles of
contending GUI frameworks for which way we will go.  For now, shouldn't
we focus on getting *one*?


-Lex



"Bill Schwab" <BSchwab at anest.ufl.edu> wrote:
> With all due respect, and much gratitude for your work on Squeak, this is a version of the kind of thinking that gave us 20+ years of market domination by Microsoft.  Geezzzz, I didn't mean to be that hard on you, but I can't quite bring myself to backspace over it.  Let me at least attempt to justify it.
> 
> The real criteria should be, for the tool itself: quality, flexibility, the track record of the maintainer (if he/she is given to frequent unexplained disappearances, etc., it might not be a good idea).
> 
> Arguably, even more important than the tool, is the "widget set(s)" that is provides/uses/accomodates.  As I said before, I think emulated widgets are perfectly ok (I would go so far as to say greatly superior to native widgets); **BUT**, they are only as good as their feel.  Ideally, they would be so beautifully designed and factored that their "look" would be easily and energetically maintained by the community, and also customizable by any motivated user/programmer.
> 
> Get all of that right, and a PlayWithMe will appear, and for the right framework, not the first one that happens to offer it.
> 
> Again, appologies for the Microsoft crack :)
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> Bill
> 
> 
>