On 10 févr. 04, at 12:38, Andreas Raab wrote:

> Just for the records:
>> A widget is just a matter of money and engineering
>> and smalltalk is not about that. The essence is elegance
>> and uniformity
>
> I think there are plenty of people who would disagree with these 
> statements.
> A widget is pretty much everything but not a matter of "money and
> engineering" (the way engineering is used here implies
> software-engineering).

I know that you know what I wanted to say :)

> It's about a consistent, friendly, enjoyable user
> experience. I won't comment on whether "Smalltalk" is about that but if
> Squeak isn't about that ... oh well.

 From the UI point of view this is clear that squeak is full of strange 
deviations (let's more than others UI I use,
I do not use Windows so Im lucky ;)


I was commenting that sentence:
  "Hi, I'm a Computer Science major having to prepare a presentation on 
Smalltalk for a programming language class "
What I wanted to say is that if you present me Smalltalk by showing me 
a widget
this will not tell me anything.

Here we just finished lectures on programming languages
We talked about dynamic type, model of inheritances, modules, 
delegation....
in C++, Smalltalk, Java, Self, Io, JavaScript, Ruby, Slate, Emerald, 
Traits, Mixins, Clos, Eiffel....
and except with Self we did not talk about UI at all.

So I know that UI is difficult and if a company would invest a lot in 
Squeak and design a UI we could have something
consistent, elegant...and the rest but this would not really be related 
to Smalltalk

PS: when I look at Mac OS X (there are still a lot of glitche such as 
how do I save this information, click on + to shrink the iTunes
window,....) I do not think about Objective-C

Stef

>
> Cheers,
>   - Andreas
>
>