Chris Muller wrote:
>> Why, after 30 years, does Squeak still appear to be a non-standard,
>> almost toy-like user experience in the IDE? Is it the case that
>> changing that would be far too complex to undertake? Or is it that
>> the community of Squeak users just isn't largely motivated to worry
>> about this subject? Or is the absence of an economic incentive the
>> problem? Or IS there a problem?
>>     
>
> 1.  What does that really mean, looks toy-like?  What's it gonna take,
> please tell us?  A manly "gray metal" look like we've seen before or
> some more rainbow gradients like we've seen before?
> 2.  What is THE "standard"?  Microsoft?  What, then, when Microsoft
> changes its look again?  Are they then "non-standard" or their
> followers?
>   
Exactly, Chris! I'm glad that Squeak doesn't follow the latest GUI fad.

On the flip side, I do agree that we live in the age of the 
"sound-byte". Most people are followers and the "look" of the tool 
conveys the power of the tool.

> 2b.  Do you remember this rubbish, "All windows programs look alike
> therefore once you've learned one you've learned them all.."?
> 3.  Even if it can be "offically" labelled "toy like," what is wrong
> with that?  Too wimpy-looking?  What's wrong with wimpy-looking as long
> as its easy and functional?
> 4.  Speaking of wimpy, someone (not you) once suggested "Squeak" was a
> wimpy-sounding name, what do you think of "KA-POW!"?
>   
ROFL! That's FUNNY!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/attachments/20060707/58774b7a/attachment.htm